Cheney World

"Shortly after the first Gulf War, then-Defense Secretary Dick Cheney was a little sensitive to charges that he failed to “finish the job” against Iraq. More than a few hawks thought that Cheney and the other Bush administration dropped the ball when it had the opportunity to take out Saddam but chose not to.

In a 1991 speech, Cheney delivered a rather defensive speech on the subject, noting the intense sectarian rivalries that dominate Iraqi society and the likely inability to maintain stability in Baghdad. As for replacing Saddam with a democracy, Cheney asked his audience, “How much credibility is that government going to have if it’s set up by the United States military when it’s there? How long does the United States military have to stay to protect the people that sign on for the government, and what happens to it once we leave?”

One of the comments is particularly appropos...

"In Cheney's Batshit Crazy World there are only two rules:
1) No matter what the facts say, Dick Cheney is always right.
2) If Dick Cheney is wrong, see rule number one. "


Matter of fact that seems to be the entire Republican modis operandi...never admit a mistake, tell the big lie enough times until people think it's the truth - exactly what Reichsfuhrer Goebbels did in WWII.

What's so funny about helping people instead of the MIC?

Mr. Samuelson's implication is that there is something wrong with helping people via the federal budget and by contrast a $500b+ military budget, which is being used less and less for self defense and more for offensive pre-emptive war, is so small in comparison to the total budget, there is no sense in reducing it.

What's wrong with helping people? It is barbaric to kill with WMD and invade other countries under false pretenses but to help the poor and see that our seniors aren't left destitute by crippling medical bills is simply the mark of an advanced society. Where is the discussion of massive transfers of tax money to large corporations, whose profits are at all time highs, in the form of subsidies, tax breaks and no-bid defense contracts? If indeed “two thirds of all taxes come from the richest fifth” I say bravo… encore! It’s not enough. The so-called conservatives love to point back to the days when Ike was president, when society behaved, we didn’t have social ills as we do today and our infrastructure wasn’t crumbling. One thing they forget to mention when pining for the good old days is that the top tax rate was up to 90%; under a Republican President. One could also raise a family with one income.

Despite the so-called conservative revolution of the past 20+ years it seems the American people, via their elected representatives, decided that welfare for the people is not such a bad thing after all in this crazy unpredictable world; doesn’t the Constitution call on the Union to “promote the general welfare…” of the people? I don’t see where it calls on the Union to promote the welfare of corporations and Wall Street. I’m all for making a profit and believe in free enterprise but we are too laissez-faire and tilted toward business and not enough toward the people. 10 Amtraks would be great! We need much more publicly subsidized transportation in this country to wean us off the lethal oil economy.

Our allies in Europe obviously have had this discussion and decided the state exists mostly for the welfare of its people and less for its corporations and defense contractors. We in the USA have only a fraction of what the Europeans have gained. I posit that if we had not spent so much of our national treasure on weapons of mass destruction life in the USA would be much less harsh and we wouldn't have over 500,000 homeless people living in the streets of this country and new parents would have more than 12 weeks of leave to care for newborn children. Where are our priorities? Trillions for the military industrial complex while our cities, roads and society crumble and the rich retreat to gated communities with private security.

Of course the politicians are craven and in denial about our country’s priorities. That doesn’t mean we should stop helping ourselves – to paraphrase GWB... "it’s our money." Why shouldn’t we give it back to ourselves in the form of national health, educational grants and subsidies, pensions for the elderly and programs to help the poor extricate themselves from poverty? This is simply what a mature society focuses on. So the next time you see an article such as this questioning the premise of Social Security, Medicare and the other government programs that promote the general welfare remember that’s what government is for and the people we’re helping are us. The defense budget is for the common defense not for aggressive war and enriching the military industrial complex.

Buggering off...as our friends across the pond say

Good riddance - take a few with you. There may yet be others as it seems the House Republican leadership kept this under their hats. I'm for equal rights for all... gay, lesbian, straight, all races and religions but Representative Mark Foley's behavior was clearly out of line and resigning was the honorable thing to do. It would have been out of line if he was pestering underage girls or if the member was female pestering underage boys or girls. The issue is these kids are underage not the man's sexual orientation.

Using social issues like gay marriage and reproductive choice as wedges to get out the vote when obviously there are G&L Republicans like Mr. Foley and Dick Cheney's lesbian daughter illustrates the pervasive Republican hypocrisy on social issues. Moralizing to the rest of the country and world when they are just like everyone else makes them look ridiculous.

This is just plain wrong -

Here we go folks - it's been brewing for some time but now it really looks as if the Bush/Cheney dream of the Fascist States of America is coming true. They say they want to protect us but I don't trust them. I think it's a power play to install an imperial presidency exceeding Dick Nixon and Henry Kissinger's wildest fantasies.

The "Military Commissions Bill" passed by, in the words of Senator Barbara Boxer D. CA "a rubber stamp senate" eviscerates our Constitution by codifying IN LAW that the judicial branch does not have the right to Constitutionaly mandated review of administration actions.

At this point one can only hope that the Supreme Court will indeed decide it has the right and declare all or parts of it un-Constitutional as it so clearly is. Unfortunately the same rubber stamp senate allowed Bush to put two right wingers on the court which almost guarantees the bill will withstand any judicial review it might be subject to.

We indeed have entered, as the NYT writes, a time not unlike the "dark chapters in [US] history, comparable to the passage of the Alien and Sedition Acts in the fragile years after the nation’s founding and the internment of Japanese-Americans in the midst of World War II." Some will say the republic has endured greater challenges and survived. We shall see.

truth is ignorance - war is peace - freedom is slavery

Its enough to make you want to cry.

Letter to Senate Judiciary Committee

Please fulfill your constitutional duty and hold this adminstration accountable for its actions and do not let them off the hook. We cannot allow them to trample the Constitution and Bill of Rights or the terrorists will have won. I support Sen. Feinstein's bill and deplore Sen. Spector's attempt to arrange a Congressional pardon for administration officials (including the president) in advance. If, as they say, they haven't broken the law then why do they need advance immunity for their actions?

"it's unacceptable to think..."

1984 - 1984 - 1984

it wasn't just a book it was a prophecy.

when do we wake up and listen to what these people are saying and doing??

Top Ten Abuses of Power Since 9/11

From the ACLU website:

"Safe and Free: There has never been a more urgent need to preserve fundamental privacy protections and our system of checks and balances than the need we face today, as illegal government spying, provisions of the Patriot Act and government-sponsored torture programs transcend the bounds of law and our most treasured values in the name of national security."

Liberal Media? Give me a break!

So much for the liberal media. The conventional wisdom that the media is biased is a myth. You want to see some liberal media? Go to www.thenation.com, www.counterpunch.org or www.democracynow.org for some real liberal media. ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN are not liberal media outlets as the story referenced at www.mediamatters.org makes very clear. The New York Times and The Washington Post while decent newspapers aren't liberal. And ever since the LA Times was taken over by the Tribune it has skewed ever further right. These media organizations are not liberal they are simply less conservative than Faux News, The Washington Times or The New York Post etc.

ABC turning into Faux?

The facts of 9/11 are compelling enough - no need to play foot loose and fancy free with them.

"With Kazakh's Visit, Bush Priorities Clash" What do you mean? He'll fit right in!

No clash here - the man will fit right in. He'll probably make a deal or two with the Bushes while he's there. After all George is going to need a place to work after Jan 2009. What better way than to start coddling and networking with oil rich dictators - uh oh wait a minute. Didn't they do that with Saddam back in the '80s? Maybe this fellow better watch his back. This is a treacherous crowd he's wading into.

The State Department investigates misuse of American supplied munitions

Ya think?

Worse than Hezbollah launching rockets that can only be aimed in a general direction not unlike the V1 and V2s in WWII? Certainly in terms of destructive capacity. Terror rains down on innocents on all sides...that's why they call it war.

Say hoss - did you hear the one about that Harris gal shootin' off her mouth again? Wee hoo!

Nice gams though...

BUT seriously folks - you wanna talk "old Europe?" This is old Europe - the kind thinking Americans of all races and religions have tried to escape from for a few hundred years now. Trouble is the fundies always seem to rear their ugly way of thinking by interjecting their "my way or the highway" kill it if it moves philospophies.

We need a new paradigm...

Tim Russert objective?

"A howler from Bush: “Nobody’s ever suggested in this administration that Saddam Hussein ordered the attack.” OK, maybe not in those words, but how ’bout in these?"

Reading Russert’s words in the link found above, with what we know now, I'm struck by how much he was pushing for the invasion - it's almost like he's goading Cheney and Rice to say Iraq was responsible for 9/11. The symbiotic relationship Russert has with these people is, not unlike Tom Friedman in his column and books, that he uses his show to ask the right questions leading to the endorsement of whatever the previaling winds seem to be blowing his way. He doesn't really get in these people's faces very much. If he did they wouldn't come on the show. So how can you get to the truth if you aren't going to get in their faces once in a while?

He really nailed Howard Den during the 2004 primary season. He wouldn't let Dean off the hook for love nor money. Why doesn't he do that to Cheney, Rice et. al.?

Comments anyone?

Right wing debate tactics

This post is in response to a typical right-wing tactic of changing the subject while debating a specific point while commenting on an article about Ann Beeson of the ACLU winning the decision on the illegal NSA Spying program. Click the link above for the article in question.

---------------

Mr. White - don't change the subject - the subject is the court decision that declared GWB's actions illegal.

Bulletin to all liberals: This is a typical right wing debate tactic - when faced with facts and the inevitability of losing the argument because their position is bankrupt they change the subject and resort to name calling accusing anyone who doesn't agree with their narrow self-serving POV of being unpatriotic and wanting to tear down the administration. It’s no more than playground bully tactics – don’t let it scare you or divert you from the point being discussed.

Mr. White - As I said no amount of wishing, washing or prevarication and obfuscation by the right wing is going to change the fact that a distinguished jurist has declared the NSA spying program illegal.

So the question here is did GWB break the law? So far the answer is; absolutely, unequivocally … YES. What does the Constitution say about lawbreaking presidents? We all know the answer to that. Let's see if, after the case winds up in the Supreme Court and they rule the program illegal, Congress has the will to enforce the Constitution.

One point I will grant - you are correct in saying America proper has not been attacked since 9/11. Your grasp of the obvious is truly astounding. However, our new enemies (courtesy of the bungling boobs running this government) have managed thus far to kill, wound and maim 23,000 Americans not to mention 45,000 Iraqis and hundreds of thousands that we’ve helped to kill and maim.

This is an idea, a concept? We are better off? I'd say we are pretty well screwed and substantially worse off due to the incomprehensible policy of attacking Iraq because of 9/11. To quote a famous "liberal" (not!) Richard Clarke it was "like attacking Mexico for Pearl Harbor."

This is foreign policy dilettantism at its worst... shoving democracy down someone's throat at gunpoint is a very difficult thing to do. It takes magnitudes more intelligence and will than the present group of bungling neo-cons has. Expecting that such a wimpy effort as 130,000 soldiers would do the job is faith based foreign policy. If the Bushites and neo-cons really wanted to get the job done right they would have listened to Colin Powell and committed at least a half million soldiers to the effort. Then they may have had a chance. But the bungling neo-cons couldn't muster the will. Now you want to do the same in Iran? You are truly deluded.

THE WALL - Essential Reading

Essential reading - more to the argument that the USA is a target because of unbalanced support of Israel.

BTW - THE WALL looks stronger than the levees in New Orleans.

Peace keeping in the Middle East?

Beyond the oxymoronic implications of a peace keeping force in the Middle East it seems the Europeans in general and the French in particular ought to step up to the plate with plenty of soldiers for UNIFIL (200 soldiers is not a peacekeeping force it's an insult) especially as Lebanon is France’s old bailiwick and they are in large part responsible for the mess the Middle East has become. (See Sykes-Picot 1916)

But as usual it seems the French want someone else to do the heavy lifting being content to sit back and throw brickbats rather than contribute to a solution, however imperfect.

Fortunately the guilt free Italians (see Libya, Ethiopia, Eritrea & Somalia in the 1930’s) have decided to take the mantle and move into the breach. Analogous to the Balkans in the 90's? Not really, but the Europeans twiddled and whistled while the Serbs massacred Muslims. It took Bill Clinton's and the USA’s leadership put a stop to that.

The Emperor has no clothes - or hasn't anyone told him yet?

Alberto? Please tell Mr. B that spying on Americans without a warrant is illegal. A high school history student could have told him that. But apparently you couldn't as obviously it took someone with much more legal acuity, knowledge and gravitas in their pinky finger than your Dept. Of Justice has in a gaggle of neo-cons to do the job.

Why won't you all just wise up and realize that George can't be King - ok? There is that pesky thing we call a Constitution that George just doesn't care for because it gets in the way of his protecting "America."

George - someone should tell you you took an oath (twice) to defend and protect the Constitution of the United States from all enemies foreign and domestic - not some neo-con "Leave it to Beaver" version of "America." An America where the rich get richer and the poor get $1 T-shirts at Wal-Mart and 99 cent burgers at McDonalds. As Pogo said "we have met the enemy and they is us..." It seems the the biggest enemy of the Constitution right now (of course there are others) is domestic and your administration and the Republican right wing fundies top the list.

Well, well, well, I had no idea - Tom Friedman a billionaire?

I always thought there was something not quite right about this fellow. Now I think I see why. Having money on that scale makes it very hard to gain anything but academic knowledge of a subject - especially when it relates to socioeconomic issues. Still that doesn't mean the man doesn't have a brain and cannot reason or use logic to deduce a solution to an issue. Never been a big fan of his though - I prefer Dowd - at least she doesn't hide that she's pretentious.

This is a photo from Christmas 2005 near the Wyoming Montana border