Why Do I Detest Karl Rove?
Yesterday’s blog brought some interesting reactions. Lots of YES! And a bit of puzzled why, so I thought maybe a little explanation was in order.
If I were in Junior High, I’d probably start my essay: I detest Karl Rove because. . .
Well what the heck. When it comes to BushCo and Rove, Jr. High is about the right level so here goes.
I detest Karl Rove because his world view is so narrow that the only thing he cares about is power. This is clearly expressed in his willingness to demean opponents so vilely that the slime covers everything around including himself. What level of personal conscience does it take to run a gubernatorial campaign based on spreading the dis-information that your opponent is a lesbian? Or to lie about finding a wiretap placed in your office by that governor? (Ann Richards, a fine Texas governor whose most famous quote was in reference to W: “He was born with a silver foot in his mouth.”) What level of personal ethic must one possess to falsely taint an American war hero as a lying coward to undercut his run for the presidency?
Hmmm. Having asked those questions, I think we’d better lower the level. Junior High students are, on the whole, far too ethically advanced to fall into the Rove category. Maybe a few more questions will help determine the appropriate level.
Bush and Rove gushed yesterday about their pride in the service they have given the country. What kind of civic servility does it take to identify the political potential of a rich, well-connected loser and publicize his path to the whitehouse so that you and your cronies can manipulate the poor smuck to your will? What kind of morality does it take to advise torture and illegal wiretapping as unmonitored executive policy? What kind of loyalty to your country does it take to be a lynchpin in an administration that uses hundreds of signing statements to justify ignoring the laws of the land? What kind of reverence for constitutional law does it take to have as your primary goal the garnering of all federal power in the hands of one political party under an all-powerful executive branch?
I have to conclude that if Rove rises to the heights of Junior High, it is only as the class bully.
Of all those questions, the last one sticks in my craw the most. I reserve my highest level of disrespect for Karl Rove and Newt Gingrich for making single party control the hallmark of today’s governmental operations. I believe that our Founding Fathers, for all their faults, understood at a very deep level the huge value of open discourse and governmental decision-making through compromise. Control by any single political school of thought is dictatorship. Our entire federal government was structured to avoid that potential.
I think Karl Rove believes that the world is full of people too stupid to ask the right questions, and, even worse, that he has the answers. I also believe that if you meet a man who says he met the Buddha on the road, you can be sure that he has not.
To me, Karl Rove and his ilk represent all the very worst attributes of our presently dysfunctional democracy. As a king-maker, he is the best only because he has the ability to completely ignore ethical and humane behavior in favor of his cause, and, to say it kindly, his cause is specious.
Be the change you wish to see in the world. -- M. K. Gandhi
Individually we have little voice. Collectively we cannot be ignored.
But in silence we surrender our power. Yours in Peace -- BR
Tuesday, August 14, 2007
Monday, August 13, 2007
Rove Resigns
At last one of the scourges of American politics will be leaving Washington. Karl Rove, the king-making master of dirty tricks, conqueror of the Democrats in Texas, and undefeated champion of self-righteous slime is going to vacate our nation’s capital and slither back under whatever rock he was hatched under – I wish.
Of course, he is not going to go back to his cave and disappear from the political scene forever. He has proven to too many pols that he can put together campaigns foul enough to make even the failed son of a failed president into a successor to the throne. Anybody who can turn a sow’s ear like George W. Bush into enough of a silk purse to become president has at least enough knowledge of the short and shallow attention span of the voting public to be able to make a god out of anybody with a modicum of speaking ability.
Karl Rove, then, will be seen as a valuable political plotter by anybody who aspires to public office. He will generate a book or two, receive massive checks for consulting with other campaign planners for a while and then re-emerge in D.C. again someday as advisor to another chosen bumbler who couldn’t have gotten there without him and wouldn’t know what to do without his daily guidance.
If that prediction ever comes true, it will signify the dying gasps of constitutionally protected rights for citizens and the installation of an all powerful executive branch that will eliminate all vestiges of power for the other two branches. Rove came close to that this time, but didn’t achieve it. Since he believes that he and only he (in the company of a chosen few just like him) possesses the understanding, will and right to dominate the world to the greater benefit of the United States, it will be absolutely necessary for him to return and finish the job.
God forbid. In the meantime, let’s just thank our lucky stars that the air in D.C. is slightly less putrescent now that he has left and do our best to ensure that neither he nor anyone like him is ever again granted access to the highest seats of power.
Be the change you wish to see in the world. -- M. K. Gandhi
Individually we have little voice. Collectively we cannot be ignored.
But in silence we surrender our power. Yours in Peace -- BR
Of course, he is not going to go back to his cave and disappear from the political scene forever. He has proven to too many pols that he can put together campaigns foul enough to make even the failed son of a failed president into a successor to the throne. Anybody who can turn a sow’s ear like George W. Bush into enough of a silk purse to become president has at least enough knowledge of the short and shallow attention span of the voting public to be able to make a god out of anybody with a modicum of speaking ability.
Karl Rove, then, will be seen as a valuable political plotter by anybody who aspires to public office. He will generate a book or two, receive massive checks for consulting with other campaign planners for a while and then re-emerge in D.C. again someday as advisor to another chosen bumbler who couldn’t have gotten there without him and wouldn’t know what to do without his daily guidance.
If that prediction ever comes true, it will signify the dying gasps of constitutionally protected rights for citizens and the installation of an all powerful executive branch that will eliminate all vestiges of power for the other two branches. Rove came close to that this time, but didn’t achieve it. Since he believes that he and only he (in the company of a chosen few just like him) possesses the understanding, will and right to dominate the world to the greater benefit of the United States, it will be absolutely necessary for him to return and finish the job.
God forbid. In the meantime, let’s just thank our lucky stars that the air in D.C. is slightly less putrescent now that he has left and do our best to ensure that neither he nor anyone like him is ever again granted access to the highest seats of power.
Be the change you wish to see in the world. -- M. K. Gandhi
Individually we have little voice. Collectively we cannot be ignored.
But in silence we surrender our power. Yours in Peace -- BR
Wednesday, August 8, 2007
American Military Revolt?
American Military Revolt?
Last night I attended a speech delivered by Ann Wright, Colonel, U.S. Army, Retired.
Col. Wright has a long history of service to her country including full careers in both the military and in the diplomatic service. Now she is speaking out in favor of impeaching both W and dick. She was adamant in insisting that we are on the cusp of impeachment and that every concerned citizen should make it a point to go to their representatives’ offices while they are home on vacation from Washington.
I plan to do that, although I have very little faith in any of our Senators and Congressmen as bearers of my message to the hill. I just keep telling myself that whether or not they will act on my opinions, they are my representatives and should at least have to listen to me and those who think like me. For that reason, I urge you to do the same. Go see them. It will be discouraging, but the DemoRats definitely need to hear that their party line is unacceptable to the people and the Repulsicans need to hear how disgusted we are with their support of BushCo – not to mention the party line rigidity that both parties continue to foment.
The issues Col. Wright suggests emphasizing are: the manipulation of intelligence BushCo used to mislead us into war; the loss of honor due to official advocation of torture as a questioning device and suspension of habeas corpus, and; surveillance without court review as passed by the Congress just last week. She also stressed the need to press for removal of our troops from Iraq, saying that far from disastrous for Iraq, our retreat would be beneficial because it would defuse the concept of occupation and allow Iraq’s government to form alliances with forces of their choice from their own region.
The thing that hit me the hardest was her description of the morale of our military. She pointed out that recruitment is in the toilet. Recruiters are offering $20,000 signing bonuses to new recruits and up to $50,000 for re-ups and still falling short of recruitment goals. Nearly 100% of our troops on the ground in Iraq, she said, are demoralized and dissatisfied with BushCo’s policies. For me that lent credence to the article below, which I have been sitting on for a while wondering how much credibility could be assigned to it. There are plenty of references in it to background sources. I hope it is true, but you can judge for yourself:
IRAQ -- ACTIVE DUTY GENERALS WILL "REVOLT" AGAINST BUSH IF HE MAINTAINS ESCALATION INTO 2008: Appearing on NBC's Chris Matthews Show, Atlanta Journal-Constitution editorial page editor Cynthia Tucker reveals that sources within the military are warning of "a revolt from active-duty generals if September rolls around and the president is sticking with the surge into '08.'" Noting that retired generals such as Gen. John Baptiste have already begun voicing their discontent with the President's strategy in Iraq, Tucker added that the generals "don't want to fall by the wayside like the generals in Vietnam did, kept pushing a war that they knew was lost." When President Bush vetoed the Iraq timeline legislation earlier this month, he claimed that "the measure would 'impose impossible conditions on our commanders in combat' by forcing them to 'take fighting directions from politicians 6,000 miles away in Washington, DC." But despite past claims that "the right force level" will be determined by "the sober judgment of our military leaders," the Bush administration has a proven track record of disregarding the advice of military leaders. As recently as last December, when the White House was first pushing its escalation plan, the administration explicitly ignored "the unanimous disagreement of the Joint Chiefs of Staff." If Tucker's sources are correct, it appears the commanders on the ground in Iraq are getting tired of "taking fighting directions" from the politician "6,000 miles away" in the White House. And they might not stay quiet for long.
Please – go see your Senators and Congressmen sometime in the next two weeks.
Be the change you wish to see in the world. -- M. K. Gandhi
Individually we have little voice. Collectively we cannot be ignored.
But in silence we surrender our power. Yours in Peace -- BR
Last night I attended a speech delivered by Ann Wright, Colonel, U.S. Army, Retired.
Col. Wright has a long history of service to her country including full careers in both the military and in the diplomatic service. Now she is speaking out in favor of impeaching both W and dick. She was adamant in insisting that we are on the cusp of impeachment and that every concerned citizen should make it a point to go to their representatives’ offices while they are home on vacation from Washington.
I plan to do that, although I have very little faith in any of our Senators and Congressmen as bearers of my message to the hill. I just keep telling myself that whether or not they will act on my opinions, they are my representatives and should at least have to listen to me and those who think like me. For that reason, I urge you to do the same. Go see them. It will be discouraging, but the DemoRats definitely need to hear that their party line is unacceptable to the people and the Repulsicans need to hear how disgusted we are with their support of BushCo – not to mention the party line rigidity that both parties continue to foment.
The issues Col. Wright suggests emphasizing are: the manipulation of intelligence BushCo used to mislead us into war; the loss of honor due to official advocation of torture as a questioning device and suspension of habeas corpus, and; surveillance without court review as passed by the Congress just last week. She also stressed the need to press for removal of our troops from Iraq, saying that far from disastrous for Iraq, our retreat would be beneficial because it would defuse the concept of occupation and allow Iraq’s government to form alliances with forces of their choice from their own region.
The thing that hit me the hardest was her description of the morale of our military. She pointed out that recruitment is in the toilet. Recruiters are offering $20,000 signing bonuses to new recruits and up to $50,000 for re-ups and still falling short of recruitment goals. Nearly 100% of our troops on the ground in Iraq, she said, are demoralized and dissatisfied with BushCo’s policies. For me that lent credence to the article below, which I have been sitting on for a while wondering how much credibility could be assigned to it. There are plenty of references in it to background sources. I hope it is true, but you can judge for yourself:
IRAQ -- ACTIVE DUTY GENERALS WILL "REVOLT" AGAINST BUSH IF HE MAINTAINS ESCALATION INTO 2008: Appearing on NBC's Chris Matthews Show, Atlanta Journal-Constitution editorial page editor Cynthia Tucker reveals that sources within the military are warning of "a revolt from active-duty generals if September rolls around and the president is sticking with the surge into '08.'" Noting that retired generals such as Gen. John Baptiste have already begun voicing their discontent with the President's strategy in Iraq, Tucker added that the generals "don't want to fall by the wayside like the generals in Vietnam did, kept pushing a war that they knew was lost." When President Bush vetoed the Iraq timeline legislation earlier this month, he claimed that "the measure would 'impose impossible conditions on our commanders in combat' by forcing them to 'take fighting directions from politicians 6,000 miles away in Washington, DC." But despite past claims that "the right force level" will be determined by "the sober judgment of our military leaders," the Bush administration has a proven track record of disregarding the advice of military leaders. As recently as last December, when the White House was first pushing its escalation plan, the administration explicitly ignored "the unanimous disagreement of the Joint Chiefs of Staff." If Tucker's sources are correct, it appears the commanders on the ground in Iraq are getting tired of "taking fighting directions" from the politician "6,000 miles away" in the White House. And they might not stay quiet for long.
Please – go see your Senators and Congressmen sometime in the next two weeks.
Be the change you wish to see in the world. -- M. K. Gandhi
Individually we have little voice. Collectively we cannot be ignored.
But in silence we surrender our power. Yours in Peace -- BR
Tuesday, August 7, 2007
Could I Agree with Newt??!!
I never in my life dreamed the day would come when I’d say that I agree with Newt Gingrich on anything more complex than, “We should not eat our children”, but that day is here. I still suspect that Newt would eat his children if he thought it would advance him two steps toward high political office, but yesterday he actually spoke the truth when he said, “The war on terror is phony.”
Those of us who spotted that phoniness before BushCo led the rest of the lemmings off that particular cliff have always known it to be a phony war, and it is no real consolation beyond relief to learn that some powerful Republicans like Newt are finally ready to denounce BushCo’s efforts. One of the deeply troubling aspects of all the wrangling over this war has been the insistence of politicians on maintaining opposite sides of the argument based solely on party affiliations. Of course, the only reason some Repulsicans are beginning to sing another tune may be that they see political opportunism swinging that way, but at least if they take a position in opposition to the war that position will align them with the lily-livered Demorats who still haven’t shown the guts needed to clearly and decisively oppose the national propensity toward violence as a method of managing our international interests.
Newt says he will flesh out his opinion on how to conduct the war on terror over the next couple of weeks – meaning, of course, that he will need to analyze the polls after each position statement before he can frame the next one – and further meaning, naturally, that he is testing the waters to see if he can ride the tide of anti-Bushism among the Repulsicans to a nomination for ’08. Your skin, like mine, may crawl at the mention of his name, but there’s no denying that Newt is such a polished politician (a polishtician?) that he could make Machiavelli blush.
There are several options Newt or anyone with a grain of sense could put forward as more powerful methods of fighting terrorism than fighting a losing war in Iraq. Even BushCo ought to be ready to pull out of that one about now. After all, dick Cheney and his buddies have extracted about as much profit out of it as they can grab unless the Iraqi parliament actually knuckles under and signs away their oil futures in exchange for the modicum of security our troop presence offers.
I risk upsetting some of my peace network friends with a few of the following statements, but I also think that the U.S. could implement a few different strategies including some military options that would increase our national safety a hell of a lot more than BushCo’s war has done. I don’t know what Newt will propose, but just for the heck of it, here are my ideas on what we ought to do.
First, stop our greedy international economic policies. I guarantee you that Newt won’t start there, but I deeply believe that the notion of continuous expansion is a dead end for economic well-being. Constant growth should give way to sustainability. That attitude change alone would show us ways to quit putting the pressure on less developed countries so we can control their resources. It would go a long way toward alleviating the international pressure our greediness has generated.
Second, remove all religious “tags” from our discussions of terrorism.
Third, give up the idea that we can fight terroristic cells with B-52s and ICBMs. We have no enemies who come within 1/7 of our spending on “defense”. Ours is wasteful spending. Big high-tech weaponry is not only useless against small terrorist cells armed with light weapons and suicide bombs, it is counter-productive in the animosity it generates through “collateral damage” killings of innocent civilians wherever they are deployed.
Reduce big weapon military spending, thus also reducing the rest of the world’s fear of how we plan to use it, increase small arms, surveillance potentials (spies, infiltrators, etc.) and boots on the ground and use these things to ferret out those cells wherever they are. The British have done a much better job than we have of identifying and defusing domestic threats. Our “Homeland Security Department” has been a joke from day one - a paper tiger that costs an arm and a leg while providing only a false sense of security without seriously impinging on any real risks. We should follow the example of the Brits and the Israelis (I’m thinking Entebbe here.). Implement meaningful intelligence efforts to identify true risks and then launch countermeasures targeted to specific threats.
Finally, start spending saved military funds on projects to improve living conditions throughout the world – starting at home. It’s really pretty simple and comes back to the question I first raised before we went to war in Iraq. i.e. Who will be the next terrorist. The son whose father we kill, or the father whose son we feed?
In the meantime, let’s pay some attention to ol’ Newt. Who knows maybe this time his Machiavellian antics will result in an amalgamation of American opinion to the effect that the war in Iraq HAS been a complete and utter waste of lives and resources, and we can all take one giant step in unity toward a more peaceful future. At the very least, Newt has proven that if we just keep talking to one another we will eventually find something to agree upon. With that thought in mind,
Be the change you wish to see in the world. -- M. K. Gandhi
Individually we have little voice. Collectively we cannot be ignored.
But in silence we surrender our power. Yours in Peace -- BR
Those of us who spotted that phoniness before BushCo led the rest of the lemmings off that particular cliff have always known it to be a phony war, and it is no real consolation beyond relief to learn that some powerful Republicans like Newt are finally ready to denounce BushCo’s efforts. One of the deeply troubling aspects of all the wrangling over this war has been the insistence of politicians on maintaining opposite sides of the argument based solely on party affiliations. Of course, the only reason some Repulsicans are beginning to sing another tune may be that they see political opportunism swinging that way, but at least if they take a position in opposition to the war that position will align them with the lily-livered Demorats who still haven’t shown the guts needed to clearly and decisively oppose the national propensity toward violence as a method of managing our international interests.
Newt says he will flesh out his opinion on how to conduct the war on terror over the next couple of weeks – meaning, of course, that he will need to analyze the polls after each position statement before he can frame the next one – and further meaning, naturally, that he is testing the waters to see if he can ride the tide of anti-Bushism among the Repulsicans to a nomination for ’08. Your skin, like mine, may crawl at the mention of his name, but there’s no denying that Newt is such a polished politician (a polishtician?) that he could make Machiavelli blush.
There are several options Newt or anyone with a grain of sense could put forward as more powerful methods of fighting terrorism than fighting a losing war in Iraq. Even BushCo ought to be ready to pull out of that one about now. After all, dick Cheney and his buddies have extracted about as much profit out of it as they can grab unless the Iraqi parliament actually knuckles under and signs away their oil futures in exchange for the modicum of security our troop presence offers.
I risk upsetting some of my peace network friends with a few of the following statements, but I also think that the U.S. could implement a few different strategies including some military options that would increase our national safety a hell of a lot more than BushCo’s war has done. I don’t know what Newt will propose, but just for the heck of it, here are my ideas on what we ought to do.
First, stop our greedy international economic policies. I guarantee you that Newt won’t start there, but I deeply believe that the notion of continuous expansion is a dead end for economic well-being. Constant growth should give way to sustainability. That attitude change alone would show us ways to quit putting the pressure on less developed countries so we can control their resources. It would go a long way toward alleviating the international pressure our greediness has generated.
Second, remove all religious “tags” from our discussions of terrorism.
Third, give up the idea that we can fight terroristic cells with B-52s and ICBMs. We have no enemies who come within 1/7 of our spending on “defense”. Ours is wasteful spending. Big high-tech weaponry is not only useless against small terrorist cells armed with light weapons and suicide bombs, it is counter-productive in the animosity it generates through “collateral damage” killings of innocent civilians wherever they are deployed.
Reduce big weapon military spending, thus also reducing the rest of the world’s fear of how we plan to use it, increase small arms, surveillance potentials (spies, infiltrators, etc.) and boots on the ground and use these things to ferret out those cells wherever they are. The British have done a much better job than we have of identifying and defusing domestic threats. Our “Homeland Security Department” has been a joke from day one - a paper tiger that costs an arm and a leg while providing only a false sense of security without seriously impinging on any real risks. We should follow the example of the Brits and the Israelis (I’m thinking Entebbe here.). Implement meaningful intelligence efforts to identify true risks and then launch countermeasures targeted to specific threats.
Finally, start spending saved military funds on projects to improve living conditions throughout the world – starting at home. It’s really pretty simple and comes back to the question I first raised before we went to war in Iraq. i.e. Who will be the next terrorist. The son whose father we kill, or the father whose son we feed?
In the meantime, let’s pay some attention to ol’ Newt. Who knows maybe this time his Machiavellian antics will result in an amalgamation of American opinion to the effect that the war in Iraq HAS been a complete and utter waste of lives and resources, and we can all take one giant step in unity toward a more peaceful future. At the very least, Newt has proven that if we just keep talking to one another we will eventually find something to agree upon. With that thought in mind,
Be the change you wish to see in the world. -- M. K. Gandhi
Individually we have little voice. Collectively we cannot be ignored.
But in silence we surrender our power. Yours in Peace -- BR
Monday, August 6, 2007
Republican Warnings
When I first received notice of Bush's creation of a system whereby he could take complete control of the government in case of "national emergency", it didn't worry me much. After all, every president in my lifetime, which I must admit has been more decades than I'd LIKE to admit, has issued a similar order.
I still tend to take it somewhat lightly, because I resist being jerked around by political fear mongering. However, as the time for national elections draws nearer and Bush's popularity drops to such levels that his own party is afraid of what he might do - as attested to by the article below - it is time to at least be watchful of the signs. I reprint the article below as a way of asking folks to be aware of these possibilities and alert to the possibility that their voices will be needed to shout BushCo down if they ever try to by-pass an election or over-ride the powers of Congress.
At the very least, we should all be aware that this is a ruthless administration that poses the greatest danger to freedom in American history. I find it hard to believe that even they would stoop to the suggestions below, but it is not unimaginable. If ever Americans needed to vigilant, it is now, and it is NOT external terrorist we should fear.
Old-line Republican warns 'something's in the works' to trigger a police state
Muriel Kane
Published: Thursday July 19, 2007
Enjoy this story? Get headlines instantly with RSS.
Thom Hartmann began his program on Thursday by reading from a new Executive Order which allows the government to seize the assets of anyone who interferes with its Iraq policies.
He then introduced old-line conservative Paul Craig Roberts -- a former Assistant Secretary of the Treasury under Reagan who has recently become known for his strong opposition to the Bush administration and the Iraq War -- by quoting the "strong words" which open Roberts' latest column: "Unless Congress immediately impeaches Bush and Cheney, a year from now the US could be a dictatorial police state at war with Iran."
"I don't actually think they're very strong," said Roberts of his words. "I get a lot of flak that they're understated and the situation is worse than I say. ... When Bush exercises this authority [under the new Executive Order] ... there's no check to it. It doesn't have to be ratified by Congress. The people who bear the brunt of these dictatorial police state actions have no recourse to the judiciary. So it really is a form of total, absolute, one-man rule. ... The American people don't really understand the danger that they face."
Roberts said that because of Bush's unpopularity, the Republicans face a total wipeout in 2008, and this may be why "the Democrats have not brought a halt to Bush's follies or the war, because they expect his unpopular policies to provide them with a landslide victory in next year's election."
However, Roberts emphasized, "the problem with this reasoning is that it assumes that Cheney and Rove and the Republicans are ignorant of these facts, or it assumes that they are content for the Republican Party to be destroyed after Bush has his fling." Roberts believes instead that Cheney and Rove intend to use a renewal of the War on Terror to rally the American people around the Republican Party. "Something's in the works," he said, adding that the Executive Orders need to create a police state are already in place.
"The administration figures themselves and prominent Republican propagandists ... are preparing us for another 9/11 event or series of events," Roberts continued. "Chertoff has predicted them. ... The National Intelligence Estimate is saying that al Qaeda has regrouped. ... You have to count on the fact that if al Qaeda's not going to do it, it's going to be orchestrated. ... The Republicans are praying for another 9/11."
Hartmann asked what we as the people can do if impeachment isn't about to happen. "If enough people were suspicious and alert, it would be harder for the administration to get away with it," Roberts replied. However, he added, "I don't think these wake-up calls are likely to be effective," pointing out the dominance of the mainstream media.
"Americans think their danger is terrorists," said Roberts. "They don't understand the terrorists cannot take away habeas corpus, the Bill of Rights, the Constitution. ... The terrorists are not anything like the threat that we face to the Bill of Rights and the Constitution from our own government in the name of fighting terrorism. Americans just aren't able to perceive that."
Roberts pointed out that it's old-line Republicans like himself, former Reagan associate deputy attorney general Bruce Fein, and Pat Buchanan who are the diehards in warning of the danger. "It's so obvious to people like us who have long been associated in the corridors of power," he said. "There's no belief in the people or anything like that. They have agendas. The people are in the way. The Constitution is in the way. ... Americans need to comprehend and look at how ruthless Cheney is. ... A person like that would do anything."
Roberts final suggestion was that, in the absence of a massive popular outcry, "the only constraints on what's going to happen will come from the federal bureaucracy and perhaps the military. They may have had enough. They may not go along with it."
The full audio of Thom Hartmann's interview with Paul Craig Roberts can be found here.
"Well, basically Russia and China, as well as France and the United Kingdom, will "provide immediate assistance" to Iran if it "is a victim of an act, or an object of a threat of, aggression in which nuclear weapons are used." Interesting, eh? So if Bush-Cheney bomb Iran, the other NPT members are required under international law TO DEFEND IRAN. That might be worth a follow-up to see if they honor that commitment. http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article18022.htm
Be the change you wish to see in the world. -- M. K. Gandhi
Individually we have little voice. Collectively we cannot be ignored.
But in silence we surrender our power. Yours in Peace -- BR
I still tend to take it somewhat lightly, because I resist being jerked around by political fear mongering. However, as the time for national elections draws nearer and Bush's popularity drops to such levels that his own party is afraid of what he might do - as attested to by the article below - it is time to at least be watchful of the signs. I reprint the article below as a way of asking folks to be aware of these possibilities and alert to the possibility that their voices will be needed to shout BushCo down if they ever try to by-pass an election or over-ride the powers of Congress.
At the very least, we should all be aware that this is a ruthless administration that poses the greatest danger to freedom in American history. I find it hard to believe that even they would stoop to the suggestions below, but it is not unimaginable. If ever Americans needed to vigilant, it is now, and it is NOT external terrorist we should fear.
Old-line Republican warns 'something's in the works' to trigger a police state
Muriel Kane
Published: Thursday July 19, 2007
Enjoy this story? Get headlines instantly with RSS.
Thom Hartmann began his program on Thursday by reading from a new Executive Order which allows the government to seize the assets of anyone who interferes with its Iraq policies.
He then introduced old-line conservative Paul Craig Roberts -- a former Assistant Secretary of the Treasury under Reagan who has recently become known for his strong opposition to the Bush administration and the Iraq War -- by quoting the "strong words" which open Roberts' latest column: "Unless Congress immediately impeaches Bush and Cheney, a year from now the US could be a dictatorial police state at war with Iran."
"I don't actually think they're very strong," said Roberts of his words. "I get a lot of flak that they're understated and the situation is worse than I say. ... When Bush exercises this authority [under the new Executive Order] ... there's no check to it. It doesn't have to be ratified by Congress. The people who bear the brunt of these dictatorial police state actions have no recourse to the judiciary. So it really is a form of total, absolute, one-man rule. ... The American people don't really understand the danger that they face."
Roberts said that because of Bush's unpopularity, the Republicans face a total wipeout in 2008, and this may be why "the Democrats have not brought a halt to Bush's follies or the war, because they expect his unpopular policies to provide them with a landslide victory in next year's election."
However, Roberts emphasized, "the problem with this reasoning is that it assumes that Cheney and Rove and the Republicans are ignorant of these facts, or it assumes that they are content for the Republican Party to be destroyed after Bush has his fling." Roberts believes instead that Cheney and Rove intend to use a renewal of the War on Terror to rally the American people around the Republican Party. "Something's in the works," he said, adding that the Executive Orders need to create a police state are already in place.
"The administration figures themselves and prominent Republican propagandists ... are preparing us for another 9/11 event or series of events," Roberts continued. "Chertoff has predicted them. ... The National Intelligence Estimate is saying that al Qaeda has regrouped. ... You have to count on the fact that if al Qaeda's not going to do it, it's going to be orchestrated. ... The Republicans are praying for another 9/11."
Hartmann asked what we as the people can do if impeachment isn't about to happen. "If enough people were suspicious and alert, it would be harder for the administration to get away with it," Roberts replied. However, he added, "I don't think these wake-up calls are likely to be effective," pointing out the dominance of the mainstream media.
"Americans think their danger is terrorists," said Roberts. "They don't understand the terrorists cannot take away habeas corpus, the Bill of Rights, the Constitution. ... The terrorists are not anything like the threat that we face to the Bill of Rights and the Constitution from our own government in the name of fighting terrorism. Americans just aren't able to perceive that."
Roberts pointed out that it's old-line Republicans like himself, former Reagan associate deputy attorney general Bruce Fein, and Pat Buchanan who are the diehards in warning of the danger. "It's so obvious to people like us who have long been associated in the corridors of power," he said. "There's no belief in the people or anything like that. They have agendas. The people are in the way. The Constitution is in the way. ... Americans need to comprehend and look at how ruthless Cheney is. ... A person like that would do anything."
Roberts final suggestion was that, in the absence of a massive popular outcry, "the only constraints on what's going to happen will come from the federal bureaucracy and perhaps the military. They may have had enough. They may not go along with it."
The full audio of Thom Hartmann's interview with Paul Craig Roberts can be found here.
"Well, basically Russia and China, as well as France and the United Kingdom, will "provide immediate assistance" to Iran if it "is a victim of an act, or an object of a threat of, aggression in which nuclear weapons are used." Interesting, eh? So if Bush-Cheney bomb Iran, the other NPT members are required under international law TO DEFEND IRAN. That might be worth a follow-up to see if they honor that commitment. http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article18022.htm
Be the change you wish to see in the world. -- M. K. Gandhi
Individually we have little voice. Collectively we cannot be ignored.
But in silence we surrender our power. Yours in Peace -- BR
Friday, August 3, 2007
Enough is Far Too Much
The Bush administration is so vile that trying to write about it has become tedious. I hate to keep saying the same thing over and over, but watching Alberto Gonzales before the Senate Judiciary Committee and not watching Harriet Miers or dick Cheney before the same committee (by virtue of Bush's refusal to honor congressional subpoenas) is enough to gag me on my own bile.
Hasn't anyone else had enough? Is there no Senator on that committee with enough integrity to say, "Have you no shame, sir? Have you no shame?" (For those too young to know - those are the questions finally put to Senator Joe McCarthy after his reign of ideological terror in the 1950s.)
Sorry I don't have more to say today, but it does seem impossible to me that our elected officials continue to treat BushCo as though they were due some respect. I say we ought to just tar and feather the whole lot and run them out of town on a rail.
I can't stand it any more. Somebody do something, PLEASE!!
Be the change you wish to see in the world. -- M. K. Gandhi
Individually we have little voice. Collectively we cannot be ignored.
But in silence we surrender our power. Yours in Peace -- BR
Hasn't anyone else had enough? Is there no Senator on that committee with enough integrity to say, "Have you no shame, sir? Have you no shame?" (For those too young to know - those are the questions finally put to Senator Joe McCarthy after his reign of ideological terror in the 1950s.)
Sorry I don't have more to say today, but it does seem impossible to me that our elected officials continue to treat BushCo as though they were due some respect. I say we ought to just tar and feather the whole lot and run them out of town on a rail.
I can't stand it any more. Somebody do something, PLEASE!!
Be the change you wish to see in the world. -- M. K. Gandhi
Individually we have little voice. Collectively we cannot be ignored.
But in silence we surrender our power. Yours in Peace -- BR
Wednesday, August 1, 2007
Straight Talk from Fritz Mondale
Walter F. Mondale: The man behind the curtain
In the decades before 9/11, the vice presidency was made relevant and respectable. Dick Cheney took that and ran roughshod with it. -- Walter F. Mondale
The Washington Post's recent series on Dick Cheney's vice presidency certainly got my attention. Having held that office myself over a quarter-century ago, I have more than a passing interest in its evolution from the backwater of American politics to the second most powerful position in our government. Almost all of that evolution, under presidents and vice presidents of both parties, has been positive -- until now. Under George W. Bush and Dick Cheney, it has gone seriously off track.
The founders created the vice presidency as a constitutional afterthought, solely to provide a president-in-reserve should the need arise. The only duty they specified was that the vice president should preside over the Senate. The office languished in obscurity and irrelevance for more than 150 years until Richard Nixon saw it as a platform from which to seek the Republican presidential nomination in 1960. That worked, and the office has been an effective launching pad for aspiring candidates since.
But it wasn't until Jimmy Carter assumed the presidency that the vice presidency took on a substantive role. Carter saw the office as an underused asset and set out to make the most of it. He gave me an office in the West Wing, unimpeded access to him and to the flow of information, and specific assignments at home and abroad. He asked me, as the only other nationally elected official, to be his adviser and partner on a range of issues.
Our relationship depended on trust, mutual respect and an acknowledgement that there was only one agenda to be served -- the president's. Every Monday the two of us met privately for lunch; we could, and did, talk candidly about virtually anything. By the end of four years we had completed the "executivization" of the vice presidency, ending two centuries of confusion, derision and irrelevance surrounding the office.
Subsequent administrations followed this pattern. George H.W. Bush, Dan Quayle and Al Gore built their vice presidencies after this model, allowing for their different interests, experiences and capabilities as well as the needs of the presidents they served.
This all changed in 2001, and especially after Sept. 11, when Cheney set out to create a largely independent power center in the office of the vice president. His was an unprecedented attempt not only to shape administration policy but, alarmingly, to limit the policy options sent to the president. It is essential that a president know all the relevant facts and viable options before making decisions, yet Cheney has discarded the "honest broker" role he played as President Gerald Ford's chief of staff.
Through his vast government experience, through the friends he had been able to place in key positions and through his considerable political skills, he has been increasingly able to determine the answers to questions put to the president -- because he has been able to determine the questions. It was Cheney who persuaded President Bush to sign an order that denied access to any court by foreign terrorism suspects and Cheney who determined that the Geneva Conventions did not apply to enemy combatants captured in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Rather than subject his views to an established (and rational) vetting process, his practice has been to trust only his immediate staff before taking ideas directly to the president. Many of the ideas that Bush has subsequently bought into have proved offensive to the values of the Constitution and have been embarrassingly overturned by the courts.
The corollary to Cheney's zealous embrace of secrecy is his near total aversion to the notion of accountability. I've never seen a former member of the House of Representatives demonstrate such contempt for Congress -- even when it was controlled by his own party. His insistence on invoking executive privilege to block virtually every congressional request for information has been stupefying -- it's almost as if he denies the legitimacy of an equal branch of government. Nor does he exhibit much respect for public opinion, which amounts to indifference toward being held accountable by the people who elected him.
Whatever authority a vice president has is derived from the president under whom he serves. There are no powers inherent in the office; they must be delegated by the president. Somehow, not only has Cheney been given vast authority by President Bush -- including, apparently, the entire intelligence portfolio -- but he also pursues his own agenda. The real question is why the president allows this to happen.
Three decades ago we lived through another painful example of a White House exceeding its authority, lying to the American people, breaking the law and shrouding everything it did in secrecy. Watergate wrenched the country, and our constitutional system, like nothing before. We spent years trying to identify and absorb the lessons of this great excess. But here we are again.
Since the Carter administration left office, we have been criticized for many things. Yet I remain enormously proud of what we did in those four years, especially that we told the truth, obeyed the law and kept the peace.
Walter F. Mondale, vice president of the United States from 1977 to 1981, wrote this article for the Washington Post. Published: August 01, 2007
My answer to Fritz’s question is that Dick Cheney has taken over many of the decision making processes heretofore reserved for the president because that was the original plan of the people who brought us George W. Bush as president. (i.e. Karl Rove, William Kristol, et al) They knew W wasn’t smart enough to handle the job. They also knew that many of the things they wanted to do couldn’t be done with the awareness of the people or of a savvy president. This way they got everything they wanted with very little risk to themselves. I’ve said before that these are evil people. I never said they weren’t clever.
It is good to see people of Mondale’s stature speaking out. Wouldn’t it be nice if active Dems had the integrity to do the same? Oh, for more like Fritz and Jimmy.
Be the change you wish to see in the world. -- M. K. Gandhi
Individually we have little voice. Collectively we cannot be ignored.
But in silence we surrender our power. Yours in Peace -- BR
In the decades before 9/11, the vice presidency was made relevant and respectable. Dick Cheney took that and ran roughshod with it. -- Walter F. Mondale
The Washington Post's recent series on Dick Cheney's vice presidency certainly got my attention. Having held that office myself over a quarter-century ago, I have more than a passing interest in its evolution from the backwater of American politics to the second most powerful position in our government. Almost all of that evolution, under presidents and vice presidents of both parties, has been positive -- until now. Under George W. Bush and Dick Cheney, it has gone seriously off track.
The founders created the vice presidency as a constitutional afterthought, solely to provide a president-in-reserve should the need arise. The only duty they specified was that the vice president should preside over the Senate. The office languished in obscurity and irrelevance for more than 150 years until Richard Nixon saw it as a platform from which to seek the Republican presidential nomination in 1960. That worked, and the office has been an effective launching pad for aspiring candidates since.
But it wasn't until Jimmy Carter assumed the presidency that the vice presidency took on a substantive role. Carter saw the office as an underused asset and set out to make the most of it. He gave me an office in the West Wing, unimpeded access to him and to the flow of information, and specific assignments at home and abroad. He asked me, as the only other nationally elected official, to be his adviser and partner on a range of issues.
Our relationship depended on trust, mutual respect and an acknowledgement that there was only one agenda to be served -- the president's. Every Monday the two of us met privately for lunch; we could, and did, talk candidly about virtually anything. By the end of four years we had completed the "executivization" of the vice presidency, ending two centuries of confusion, derision and irrelevance surrounding the office.
Subsequent administrations followed this pattern. George H.W. Bush, Dan Quayle and Al Gore built their vice presidencies after this model, allowing for their different interests, experiences and capabilities as well as the needs of the presidents they served.
This all changed in 2001, and especially after Sept. 11, when Cheney set out to create a largely independent power center in the office of the vice president. His was an unprecedented attempt not only to shape administration policy but, alarmingly, to limit the policy options sent to the president. It is essential that a president know all the relevant facts and viable options before making decisions, yet Cheney has discarded the "honest broker" role he played as President Gerald Ford's chief of staff.
Through his vast government experience, through the friends he had been able to place in key positions and through his considerable political skills, he has been increasingly able to determine the answers to questions put to the president -- because he has been able to determine the questions. It was Cheney who persuaded President Bush to sign an order that denied access to any court by foreign terrorism suspects and Cheney who determined that the Geneva Conventions did not apply to enemy combatants captured in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Rather than subject his views to an established (and rational) vetting process, his practice has been to trust only his immediate staff before taking ideas directly to the president. Many of the ideas that Bush has subsequently bought into have proved offensive to the values of the Constitution and have been embarrassingly overturned by the courts.
The corollary to Cheney's zealous embrace of secrecy is his near total aversion to the notion of accountability. I've never seen a former member of the House of Representatives demonstrate such contempt for Congress -- even when it was controlled by his own party. His insistence on invoking executive privilege to block virtually every congressional request for information has been stupefying -- it's almost as if he denies the legitimacy of an equal branch of government. Nor does he exhibit much respect for public opinion, which amounts to indifference toward being held accountable by the people who elected him.
Whatever authority a vice president has is derived from the president under whom he serves. There are no powers inherent in the office; they must be delegated by the president. Somehow, not only has Cheney been given vast authority by President Bush -- including, apparently, the entire intelligence portfolio -- but he also pursues his own agenda. The real question is why the president allows this to happen.
Three decades ago we lived through another painful example of a White House exceeding its authority, lying to the American people, breaking the law and shrouding everything it did in secrecy. Watergate wrenched the country, and our constitutional system, like nothing before. We spent years trying to identify and absorb the lessons of this great excess. But here we are again.
Since the Carter administration left office, we have been criticized for many things. Yet I remain enormously proud of what we did in those four years, especially that we told the truth, obeyed the law and kept the peace.
Walter F. Mondale, vice president of the United States from 1977 to 1981, wrote this article for the Washington Post. Published: August 01, 2007
My answer to Fritz’s question is that Dick Cheney has taken over many of the decision making processes heretofore reserved for the president because that was the original plan of the people who brought us George W. Bush as president. (i.e. Karl Rove, William Kristol, et al) They knew W wasn’t smart enough to handle the job. They also knew that many of the things they wanted to do couldn’t be done with the awareness of the people or of a savvy president. This way they got everything they wanted with very little risk to themselves. I’ve said before that these are evil people. I never said they weren’t clever.
It is good to see people of Mondale’s stature speaking out. Wouldn’t it be nice if active Dems had the integrity to do the same? Oh, for more like Fritz and Jimmy.
Be the change you wish to see in the world. -- M. K. Gandhi
Individually we have little voice. Collectively we cannot be ignored.
But in silence we surrender our power. Yours in Peace -- BR
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
