Be INFORMED

Friday, June 01, 2007

The Impeachment Of George Bush

     Crossposted from Common Dreams

Published on Thursday, May 31, 2007 by TruthDig.com

Repudiation, Not Impeachment

by Scott Ritter

It is a question I am faced with at every public event I participate in: What are my views on the impeachment of President Bush and others in his administration? Generally, the question is preceded by an emotional statement listing the “crimes” which Mr. Bush is accused of committing, and the questioner has already found him guilty. Whether it is the war in Iraq, conspiracy theories about 9/11, Hurricane Katrina, or any given variation of the theme of constitutional abuse of power, the one thing all of the questioners have in common (besides the desirable outcome) is their singular conviction that the president is guilty.

I have considerable sympathy for this stance. I myself have stated on more than one occasion that I believe President Bush has lied to Congress and the American people about the reasons for going to war with Iraq (i.e., the whole WMD/al-Qaida intelligence fabrication/misrepresentation fiasco). I also believe that the president’s sanctioning of warrantless wire-tapping, along with a litany of other abuses of power stemming from the Patriot Act approved by Congress after Sept. 11, 2001, likewise constitutes grounds for impeachment. Several Democrats in Congress are actually discussing the possibility of impeachment of President Bush and the irrepressible Congressmen Dennis Kucinich has actually introduced articles of impeachment for Vice President Dick Cheney.

Even some Republicans are getting on board the impeachment bandwagon, although with caveats. “Any president who says ‘I don’t care’ or ‘I will not respond to what the people of this country are saying about Iraq or anything else’ or ‘I don’t care what the Congress does, I am going to proceed’-if a president really believes that, then there are … ways to deal with that,” Sen. Chuck Hagel, a Republican from Nebraska, said of President Bush in obvious reference to impeachment.

Hagel is correct: Impeachment is the constitutional remedy for a unilateral president whose governance is an insult to traditional American democratic norms and values. However, impeachment alone is simply a measure which addresses the symptoms of a larger malaise that has stricken America. The arrogance associated with the concept of the unitary executive is prevalent throughout mainstream American political life. The passivity of the legislative branch is one byproduct of the dominance of the unitary executive. It is also an indicator that the will of the people, as expressed through their election of the people’s representatives to the Congress of the United States, no longer has the weight and bearing long associated with the American democratic experience.

Any effort to impeach Bush and any of his administration found to be engaged in activities classifiable as “high crimes and misdemeanors” would fail to rein in the unitary executive core of any successor. One only has to listen to the rhetoric of the Democratic candidates for president to understand that this trend is as deeply rooted among them as it is with President Bush. Americans today look for leaders without recognizing the absolute necessity of electing team players. The Founding Fathers deliberately designed the executive branch to be strong and independent, but also made sure, through an elaborate system of checks and balances, that it operated merely as one of three separate but equal branches of government.

The “in your face” efforts of the Bush administration to minimize the role of Congress and to achieve political control of the judiciary are simply more public manifestations of trends that occurred in a more quiet fashion in past administrations, Republican and Democratic alike. When America elects a leader who states clearly that he or she will work with their equal partners in governance, the Congress, for the good of the country, and who will acknowledge the supremacy of law set forth in the form of binding legislation passed by the will of Congress void of any limiting or contradicting “presidential signing statement,” then we will finally have a leader who is truly worthy of the title “President of the United States of America.”

But this will not happen of its own volition. The impeachment of President Bush would not in and of itself terminate executive unilateralism. It would only limit its implementation on the most visible periphery, driving its destructive designs back into the shadows of government, away from the public eye, and as such, public accountability. Impeach President Bush, yes, if in fact he can be charged with the commission of acts which meet the constitutional standard for impeachment (and I believe he could, if Congress only had the will to do its job). But to truly heal America, we must repudiate everything President Bush stands for, in terms of not only public and foreign policy, but also in terms of his style of governance, since the former is derived from the latter.

Repudiation is a strong term, defined as “rejecting as having no authority or binding force,” to “cast off or disown,” or to “reject with disapproval or condemnation.” In my opinion, the complete repudiation of the presidency of George W. Bush is the only recourse we have collectively as a people to not only seek redress for the wrongs committed by the Bush administration, but also to purge society of this cancer that threatens to consume and destroy us as a whole, and which would continue to manifest itself in our system of governance even after any impeachment proceedings.

Like any cancerous growth, the Bush administration has attached its malignancy to the American nation in a cruel fashion, its poisonous tentacles stretching deep into our national fabric in a manner that makes difficult the task of culling out the healthy from the diseased. But we cannot truly repudiate something without its complete and utter elimination from our midst. As such, there must be a litmus test to help us differentiate the good from the bad, that which must be restored from that which must be eliminated. For me, there is only one true test: that of constitutionality. There will be those who argue, and have argued, that the time is well past for an oppressed people (and one would be a fool not to comprehend that under the Bush administration, the American people have in fact been oppressed) to rely on the niceties of legal argument, especially when the system of law we seek to use in our defense has been so thoroughly corrupted by those who seek to impose tyranny.

I was recently in Ireland, where I delivered a presentation on the current situation in the Middle East. In criticizing the Bush administration’s policies, I launched into a staunch defense of the Constitution of the United States and decried what I believed to be the inadequacies of Congress and the American people in defending their constitutional inheritance. Afterward, I was confronted by an Irishman who challenged me on the validity of our Constitution. As he pointed out, none other than President Thomas Jefferson himself, the author of the Declaration of Independence and a proponent of constitutional law, is famously quoted as saying, “The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure.” If, as I maintained, the Bush administration was deviating so far off course from the ideals and values set forth in the Constitution, was it not time for a new American Revolution to “refresh” liberty with “the blood of patriots and tyrants?”

There can be no doubt that Jefferson was a promoter of resistance to the forces of tyranny. It was he who, after all, who penned the famous words proclaiming the need for American independence from the tyranny of British rule: “That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness …when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.”

If faced with a situation today in which the American people felt that our current form of government sought to imprison them “under absolute Despotism,” would we not be obligated to apply “natural manure” in an effort to refresh the “tree of liberty?”

Short of a complete and total abdication on the part of the Congress, the collapse of the judiciary system, and a shocking decision by those men and women who wear the uniform of the armed forces of the United States to lend force of arms to the will of a dictatorial president, I cannot ever envision a time in which conditions in these United States could deteriorate to the point that a violent revolution “of the people and by the people” would be required to restore constitutional legitimacy and authority. Having said that, I remind the reader that with so few Americans professing any working understanding of the Constitution, it is difficult to speak of people defending that which they remain ignorant of.

While I reject violence as a means of redressing social wrongs, especially when applied to issues of governance, and instead rely on the rule of law as manifested by the Constitution and those legitimate bodies empowered by the Constitution to remedy every situation, I cannot help but fear the moment when the foundation of legitimacy which defines who we are and what we are as a nation fades away into irrelevance amidst a sea of complacency and ignorance. There is no greater breeding ground for the forces of tyranny than the surrender of civic responsibility on the part of those entrusted with the defense of liberty. And in this I do not mean the Congress of the United States, but rather the people of the United States, the duly elected representatives of whom constitute the Congress.

I fear not the bloody rebellion of an outraged citizenry, but rather the passive submission of a shameful mass which betrays the cause of liberty and freedom through the abandonment of the Constitution, and the obligations of citizenship derived thereof, in favor of the narcotic of consumerism. Such a mass, foreswearing blind obedience to those who profess how to best construct a cocoon that immerses the occupant in transitory comfort, is the most pressing problem facing America today. In a nation whose defining document begins, “We the People,” I find that it is we the people who constitute the greatest threat to the future of America. It is not through the force of our actions, but rather the vacuum created by our inaction and apathy, a vacuum all too readily filled by those who would have us exchange our hard-fought freedoms for a gilded cage of market-driven consumerism.

This is the main reason why I am not a proponent of the ‘impeach now’ mentality so prevalent in political circles that oppose George W. Bush. The expediency of impeachment simply replaces one source of tyranny (President Bush) with another (whomever replaces him). It is not the failures of an individual that have gotten us to where we are today, but rather the failure of the collective. So before we speak of impeachment and the notion of executive accountability, I would like to address the issue of repudiation and the necessity of civic responsibility.

Whatever field I endeavored to participate in,-whether as a football player in college, an officer in the Marines or a firefighter today,-whenever the going got tough, it was always pounded into my head to fall back on “the basics.” That is to say, a foundation of norms from which everything else was derived. By adhering to these “basics,” I and others were able to navigate whatever treacherous course we were attempting, more often than not with success. As such, in formulating a coherent response to the challenge put to me by the Irishman concerning the need to “fertilize the tree of liberty,” I find myself falling back on the “basics” of citizenship, to seek out the fundamentals of individual responsibility in the American democratic experiment. And there is no better source for these fundamentals than the most strident defender of the individual American-Thomas Jefferson himself.

Jefferson was in France during the drafting of the Constitution, and did not play a direct role in negotiating its content. But such was his heft as a founder of America that his opinion was sought by many of those who were so engaged. One of these critical players, James Madison (who later became the fourth President of the United States, following Jefferson), wrote a letter to Jefferson shortly after the Constitutional Convention finished its work in September 1787, and prior to ratification, interpreting critical aspects of the Constitution. I view Madison’s words to be worthy of consideration when addressing the issue of citizenship and responsibility.

“In the American Constitution,” he wrote on Oct. 24, 1787, “the general authority will be derived entirely from the subordinate authorities. The Senate will represent the States in their political capacity; the other House will represent the people of the States in their individual capacity. The former will be accountable to their constituents at moderate, the latter at short periods. The President also derives his appointment from the States, and is periodically accountable to them. This dependence of the General on the local authorities seems effectually to guard the latter against any dangerous encroachments of the former; whilst the latter, within their respective limits, will be continually sensible of the abridgement of their power, and be stimulated by ambition to resume the surrendered portion of it.”

In short, Madison underscored the fundamental role of the people in the chain of accountability, and the necessity of their informed involvement if the system of American constitutional governance was to work. A breakdown on the part of the “general authority” would lead to chaos and anarchy. Likewise, the failure of the “subordinate authority,” inclusive of the people, to hold the “general authority” in check would facilitate the slide toward tyranny and oppression.

Jefferson himself, before the convening of the Constitutional Convention, had long reflected on the issues of constitutional government. Just as Jefferson’s rendering of the Declaration of Independence drew from his earlier work, “A Summary View of the Rights of British America,” so, too, were his views on the American Constitution drawn from his earlier writings on issues pertaining to the Constitution of Virginia, which are contained in a collection of work dating from 1781-82 known as “Notes on Virginia.” The purpose of a Constitution, Jefferson wrote, was ” … to bind up the several branches of government by certain laws, which, when they transgress, their acts shall become nullities; to render unnecessary an appeal to the people, or in other words a rebellion, on every infraction of their rights, on the peril that their acquiescence shall be construed into an intention to surrender those rights.”

Here Jefferson himself answers the question of the need to “fertilize” the “tree of liberty” with the blood of rebellion: It is not required, nor desired, so long as a system of rule by law (i.e., a Constitution) is present and adhered to. The importance of a Constitution in preserving the character of a nation through perpetuity was paramount in Jefferson’s view. “It is true,” he argued in his “Notes on Virginia,” that “we are as yet secured against tyrannical laws by the spirit of the times. … But is the spirit of the people an infallible, a permanent reliance? Is it government? Is this the kind of protection we receive in return for the rights we give up? Besides, the spirit of the times may alter, will alter. Our rulers will become corrupt, our people careless.”

Today one only needs to observe the corruption of our rulers and the carelessness of our people to understand the significance of the Constitution when it comes to preserving these United States of America. The nefarious nature of the Bush cancer is that, in its infection of the American system, it seeks to draw legitimacy for its tyrannical actions by citing the very same Constitution it seeks to destroy. The promoters of this point of view cite the academic term “Unitary Executive Theory” when defining their philosophy. To me, it is nothing less than treason. The Founding Fathers, in discussing the concept of a “unitary executive,” made use of the term in a manner reflective of their desire to restrain executive power, versus the extreme interpretation embraced by counsels to President Bush and Vice President Cheney who seek to expand executive power and authority to near dictatorial levels, especially during a time of war. The tendency on the part of President Bush to obviate the role of Congress is well documented, in matters pertaining to governance in times of peace as well as war. The unprecedented number of presidential signing statements issued by Bush speaks volumes to this trend. These signing statements, historically a device used by executives to protect presidential prerogative when it comes to how a bill might be interpreted in a court of law, have been used by the Bush administration to negate the legal impact of a given piece of legislation by clearly stating the intent of the president to act in a manner inconsistent with the letter of the law. That the president believes he has a right to conduct himself in this manner is the height of hubris; that Congress continues to facilitate this behavior unchallenged represents the depth of legislative depravity.

It would be interesting to have a national debate on the concept of a “unitary executive,” where the proponents would cite the “vesting clause” (Article II, Section 1) of the Constitution, which states, “The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.” The advocates of a “unitary executive” combine the “vesting clause” with Article II, Section 3, Clause 4, the “take care” clause, which states that the president must “take care that the laws be faithfully executed” to make a case for a seamless hierarchy of power solely vested in the executive. Stephen Calabrisi and Kevin Rhodes staked out this argument in their 1992 article, “The Structural Constitution: Unitary Executive, Plural Judiciary,” in the Harvard Law Review (Issue 105, 1992). The foundation of their argument is drawn from a backwards reading of the Constitution, which addresses the issue of “Mandatory Jurisdiction” as set forth in the “vesting clause” not of the executive, but rather the judiciary, in Article III of the Constitution.

By establishing a link between the exclusive authority of the courts derived from the “vesting clause” of Article III, Calabrisi and Rhodes argue that a similar exclusive authority, this time for the executive, is derived from the “vesting clause” of Article II.

Of course, the Constitution was not written from back to front, and should neither be read nor interpreted from back to front. Missing from the entire dynamic of the underlying theory of the proponents of a “unitary executive” is the pressing reality of the Constitution itself, in particular the “vesting clause” of Article I, Section 1, which states that “All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.”

Likewise, Calabrisi and Rhodes ignore Article I, Section 8, which enumerates the powers of Congress, and Article I, Section 8, Clause 18 (the “necessary and proper” clause), which states that Congress shall have all the power “[t]o make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.”

The “necessary and proper” clause gained preeminence with the landmark case of “McCulloch v. Maryland,” decided by the Supreme Court in 1819. The decision by Chief Justice Marshall clearly established the principle that that the Constitution grants to Congress implied powers for implementing the Constitution’s express powers, in order to create a functional national government. Marshall noted that the “necessary and proper” clause “purport[s] to enlarge, not to diminish the powers vested in the government. It purports to be an additional power, not a restriction on those already granted.” Marshall went on:

This government is acknowledged by all, to be one of enumerated powers. The principle, that it can exercise only the powers granted to it, would seem too apparent, to have required to be enforced by all those arguments, which its enlightened friends, while it was depending before the people, found it necessary to urge; that principle is now universally admitted.

That Chief Justice Marshall was speaking about the Congress of the United States when addressing the issue of the expansion of enumerated power should not be missed by those who seek to invalidate the theory and practice of a “unitary executive.”

The sad fact is, however, there are far too few Americans who are equipped and/or prepared to engage in a constitutional discussion, not to mention one of this magnitude. Having failed to read and comprehend this vital cornerstone of America, they are poorly positioned to come to its defense in this, the Constitution’s time of need. You cannot defend that which you remain ignorant of. Thomas Jefferson, in an 1802 letter to his friend and confidant, Joseph Priestly, noted that, “Though written constitutions may be violated in moments of passion or delusion, yet they furnish a text to which those who are watchful may again rally and recall the people. They fix, too, for the people the principles of their political creed.” Thus, an American people ignorant of their Constitution remain a people collectively void of principle or creed. Given that state of affairs that is the American body politic today, this is a harsh yet far too accurate indictment of the state of American citizenship.

Those who espouse the nobility of patriotism by extolling Article II, Section 4 of the Constitution, which addresses the issue of impeachment of the president and vice president, are all too mute about the remainder of that great document. Whether this silence is derived from negligence or ignorance, or a combination thereof, is not the point. What lies at the heart of this issue is that void of a solid foundation of “creed,” as Thomas Jefferson put it, to fall back on in times of constitutional crisis derived from the abuse of power and authority. The American people have only a bottomless pit as their support, and this is no support at all. Impeach President Bush? Maybe, if due process dictates. Repudiate President Bush? Absolutely, especially if one aspires for an America that truly matches the visions and ideals set forth by the Founding Fathers.

Repudiate the notion of a “unitary executive.”

Repudiate presidential signing statements.

Repudiate executive violation of Article 6 of the Constitution, which binds municipal law in America with binding treaty obligations incurred when the Senate ratifies a treaty or agreement by a two-thirds majority or better.

Repudiate “faith-based initiatives” pushed by any branch of government.

Repudiate a weak Congress.

Repudiate weak senators or representatives, especially those with a track record of abrogating their constitutional mandate.

Repudiate ignorance, especially that of the American citizen who knows little or nothing about the Constitution which empowers him or her.

Repudiate consumerism, especially the virulent form it takes in the selfish framework of American-centric capitalism.

Repudiate pre-emptive wars of aggression.

Repudiate American Empire.

Instead, embrace the empowerment of education. Embrace active citizenship. Embrace the rule of law, as set forth by the Constitution. Do all of this and, in the end, if conditions and circumstance warrant, impeach President Bush and any of those in his administration so deserving.

Thomas Jefferson was prescient in his musings to another confidant, Moses Robinson, in 1801 when he wrote, “I sincerely wish … we could see our government so secured as to depend less on the character of the person in whose hands it is trusted. Bad men will sometimes get in and with such an immense patronage may make great progress in corrupting the public mind and principles. This is a subject with which wisdom and patriotism should be occupied.”

That wise American patriots would be so occupied today is my wish and dream.

Scott Ritter was a Marine Corps intelligence officer from 1984 to 1991 and a United Nations weapons inspector in Iraq from 1991 to 1998. He is the author of numerous books, including “Iraq Confidential” (Nation Books, 2005) , “Target Iran” (Nation Books, 2006) and his latest, “Waging Peace: The Art of War for the Antiwar Movement” (Nation Books, April 2007).

© 2007 TruthDig.com

Tags:

U.S. Wants Cease-Fires In Iraq

The U.S. military is working more aggressively to forge cease-fires with Iraqi militants and quell the violence around Baghdad, judging that 80 percent of enemy combatants are "reconcilable," a top U.S. commander said Thursday.    A.P.

   Lt. Gen. Raymond Odierno, speaking to Pentagon reporters by way of video conference, says that he's pushing his officers  to talk with the tribes, religious and political leaders and some of the smaller insurgent groups in order to stop the violence in Iraq. He also says that he might not be able to make his scheduled September assessment of the situation in Iraq.

Raymond Odierno: "We are talking about cease-fires, and maybe signing some things that say they won't conduct operations against the government of Iraq or against coalition forces. We believe a large majority of groups within Iraq are reconcilable and are now interested in engaging with us. But more importantly, they want to engage and become a part of the government of Iraq."

Stemming the violence in and around the capital city is key to giving the Iraqi government time to stabilize and move toward reconciliation with the warring sectarian factions. That would then allow the U.S. to begin withdrawing troops.

Odierno said he believes that about 80 percent of the enemy fighters — including key Sunni insurgent groups and Shiite militia — could be brought into the political process. The remainder, he said, are largely al-Qaida operatives who will have to captured or killed.

  The press in this country need to stop with the bullshit about our troops being withdrawn from Iraq because we all know that this isn't going to happen no matter what the Democrats or the military says. We are in Iraq until hell freezes over or until Bush, the military, and the Democrats get us all killed.  You do not build a nearly $600 million dollar embassy   compound with walls so high that the only way to see the place is by air unless you intend on staying for quite some time.

   The United States may withdraw some troops, but the delusion of all of our men and women coming is never going to happen, so get use to it.

  A cease fire amongst the groups in Iraq? That isn't going to happen in our lifetimes either. That would go against the Bush regime's plans, or maybe not. If this administration is pushing for a cease fire, it would only be to get the groups to agree to the ExxonMobile oil bill that Bush wants the Iraqis to agree to.

 

Tags:

Wednesday, May 30, 2007

Democrats Don't Wish To Impeach Bush/Cheney

Democrats in Washington want to keep impeachment off the table

By Steven Thomma
McClatchy Newspapers

WASHINGTON - The push to impeach President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney is gaining a hearing in some parts of the country, but not in Washington.

More than 70 cities and 14 state Democratic parties have urged impeachment or investigations that could lead to impeachment. The most common charge is that Bush manipulated intelligence to lead the country into the Iraq war. Other charges include spying on Americans and torturing suspected terrorists in violation of U.S. and international law.

Most recently, the Massachusetts Democratic Party voted to push impeachment of both men. The 2,500 state convention delegates voted almost unanimously against Cheney; the vote against Bush was closer.

Massachusetts' Democratic Party thus joined 13 others on the investigate-or-impeach bandwagon, including: Alaska, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Maine, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Carolina, Oregon, Vermont, Washington and Wisconsin.    More

      This report also notes that the Democrats don't want to go through the same kind of backlash that the GOP suffered when they impeached bill Clinton. The Democrats are showing their " wussy " stripes as was predicted. Clinton got impeached over lying about a blow-job, which the majority of Americans could have cared less about and that is why the Repugnicans caught hell in the first place.

  We have George Bush and Dick Cheney lying to bring us into an illegal war, spying on its own citizens for no cause,and a host of other illegal activities, including possible war crimes and crimes against humanity. I said possible? We know that these clowns are guilty of every crime imaginable so the Democrats should stop worrying about political fallout and the 2008 elections, and get on with impeaching these bastards.

 

Tags:

Monday, May 28, 2007

An Essay From A Soldier In Iraq

   This comes by way of AMERICAblog.

I came here as part of the first wave of this so called "troop surge", but so far it has effectively done nothing to quell insurgent violence. I have seen the rise in violence between the Sunni and Shiite. This country is in the middle of a civil war that has been on going since the seventh century.
Why are we here when this country still to date does not want us here? Why does our president’s personal agenda consume him so much, that he can not pay attention to what is really going on here?
....I would just like to know what is the true reason we are here? This country poses no threat to our own. So why must we waste the lives of good men on a country that does not give a damn about itself? Most of my friends here share my views, but do not have the courage to say anything.

   There is much, much more to this essay from this soldier so you may wish to go HERE to read all of it.

Tags:

GOP Candidates Using 9/11-Iraq Ties In Their Campaigns

  Like we should expect anything better from the Repugnicans when it comes to the truth? Come on, they wouldn't know truth if it bit them in their asses!

   What we have is the Republican's three stooges ( McCain, Romney, Giuliani ) out and about as strong as ever spouting off the usual Bush bullshit about the Iraqi war in their lousy attempt to defend the American presence there, still. You know their toys well enough by now, Iraq was responsible for the 9/11 attacks, blah, blah, blah.

      Remember the debate in South Carolina? Senator McCain made the suggestion that Osama bin Laden  would "follow us home" from Iraq, leaving the impression that bin Laden is in Iraq, which he isn't.

   Giuliani, not one to be left out of the chat, said this, "these people want to follow us here and they have followed us here. Fort Dix happened a week ago " after he was asked a question about Iraq. Of course, it is known that none of the six were from Iraq nor were they involved with al Qaeda.

   the GOP hasn't gotten so use to their own spin that I think that they believe their own lies.

  Let us not forget dear old Mitt Romney! He went ahead and threw out the names of different groups that he said, "They want to bring down the West, particularly us.And they've come together as Shia and Sunni and Hezbollah and Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood and Al Qaeda, with that intent."         source

  It is noted that the experts say only a few of those groups that Romney mentioned actually have worked together and others have only threatened the United States.

 

Spokespeople for McCain and Romney say the candidates were expressing their deep-seated convictions that terrorists would benefit if the United States were to withdraw from Iraq. The spokesmen say that even if Iraq had no connection to the Sept. 11 attacks, Al Qaeda-inspired terrorists have infiltrated Iraq as security has deteriorated since the invasion, and now pose a direct threat to the United States.

But critics, including some former CIA officials, said those statements could mislead voters into believing that the perpetrators of the 9/11 attacks are now fighting the United States in Iraq .

Michael Scheuer , the CIA's former chief of operations against bin Laden in the late 1990s, said the comments of some GOP candidates seem to suggest that bin Laden is controlling the insurgency in Iraq, which he is not.

"There are at least 41 groups [worldwide] that have announced their allegiance to Osama bin Laden -- and I will bet that none of them are directed by Osama bin Laden," Scheuer said, pointing out that Al Qaeda in Iraq is not overseen by bin Laden.   The Boston Globe    read more

     Factually challenged group of Republicans? Indeed!  Do the intellectually challenged  28% of the population really want to go through another Republican president?

Tags:

Fox News At Bottom Of The News Barrel

   Most of us with an I.Q. over five or at least a pre-kindergarten education have known that FoxNews is anything but a news network, especially where the war in Iraq is concerned or the prosecutor purge for that matter. Anything which places the bush Crime Family in a bad light is generally down-played on this network.

  Here  is a look at the important stories as far as FoxBews has been concerned.

What's more important: Iraq or Anna Nicole Smith?

Depends on which network you're watching.

According to PEJ's first quarter News Coverage Index, "MSNBC and CNN were much more consumed with the war in Iraq than was Fox." (See the chart to the right.)

In daytime, FNC devoted 6 percent of its time to Iraq, and 17 percent of its time to Anna Nicole. For CNN, the mix was 20 percent Iraq, 5 percent Anna; for MSNBC, the mix was 18 percent Iraq, 10 percent Anna.

"Fox also stood out for its lack of coverage on the firings of the U.S. attorneys, compared with the other channels. The story, which gained real momentum in mid March, consumed a mere 2% of Fox̢۪s total airtime. CNN devoted twice that percent (4%) and MSNBC four times (8%)," the report says...

 

Tags:

Sunday, May 27, 2007

More George Bush Bull For Memorial Day

BarbinMD has taken a look at the past Memorial Day speeches that Bush has given and has compared them to each other.

Six Memorial Day Speeches By George W. Bush

Sun May 27, 2007

On May 28, 2001, George W. Bush gave his first Memorial Day address.  At that point in time, there were zero fatalities in Bush's Global War on Terror.  On that day he said:

It is not in our nature to seek out wars and conflicts.

Unfortunately, it was in his nature and four months after speaking those words, the terrorist attacks of September 11th "changed everything."  

And as the post 9/11 events unfolded and Bush planned for his war but not for the peace, it's too bad he didn't remember something else he said that Memorial Day:

We know that they all loved their lives as we love ours.  We know they had a place in the world, families waiting for them, and friends they expected to see again. We know that they thought of a future, just as we do, with plans and hopes for a long and full life.

By May 27, 2002, there were 34 fatalities in Bush' GWOT when he made his second Memorial Day address from Normandy.

Words can only go so far in capturing the grief and sense of loss for the families of those who died in all our wars. For some military families in America and in Europe, the grief is recent, with the losses we have suffered in Afghanistan. They can know, however, that the cause is just and, like other generations, these sacrifices have spared many others from tyranny and sorrow.

This was when we were in Afghanistan, going after al Qaeda, Osama bin Laden and those responsible for attacking America.  But as we now know, the plans for Iraq had been made months before and on this Memorial Day, Bush floated one of the talking points for the upcoming war:

...In the nearly 14 decades since, our nation's battles have all been far from home. Here on the continent of Europe were some of the fiercest of those battles, the heaviest losses, and the greatest victories.

And in all those victories American soldiers came to liberate, not to conquer.

Less than a year later, the mission was accomplished and when Bush made his third Memorial Day address on May 26, 2003, there were 275 total fatalities in his GWOT. On that day he said:

...we have laid to rest Americans who fell in the battle of Iraq. One of the funerals was for Marine Second Lieutenant Frederick Pokorney Junior, of Jacksonville, North Carolina. His wife, Carolyn, received a folded flag. His two year old daughter, Taylor, knelt beside her mother at the casket to say a final goodbye.

His president, George, didn't attend the funeral.  But why would he?  After all, those that find the courage to serve aren't his kind of people:

In every generation of Americans we have found courage equal to the tasks of our country. The farms and small towns and city streets of this land have always produced free citizens who assume the discipline and duty of military life.

But don't look to the elite...or the Texas Air National Guard?  

A year later, with 985 fatalities in his war, Bush's Memorial Day Address on May 31, 2004 was more defensive, perhaps reflecting his falling poll numbers:

Through our history, America has gone to war reluctantly, because we have known the costs of war. And the war on terror we're fighting today has brought great costs of its own. Since the hour this nation was attacked...

Roughly translated: We didn't really want to go to war but, September 11th, September 11th, September 11th...

By May 30, 2005, there were 1892 casualties in Bush's war.  When he spoke that day, Bush said of Arlington Cemetery:

At a distance, their headstones look alike.

I suppose that is so when they are just numbers...when you don't attend the funerals of those you send into battle, their headstones probably do look alike.  And what is there left to say except to repeat tired clichés and talking points?

Another generation is fighting a new war against an enemy that threatens the peace and stability of the world. Across the globe, our military is standing directly between our people and the worst dangers in the world...Because of the sacrifices of our men and women in uniform, two terror regimes are gone forever, freedom is on the march, and America is more secure.

During last year's Memorial Day address, with 2733 fatalities in his war, Bush said:

In this place where valor sleeps, we acknowledge our responsibility as Americans to preserve the memory of the fallen.

But he will never, never acknowledge his own responsibility for sending them to their deaths for a lie.

And tomorrow, with 3844 total fatalities in Bush's two wars, he will make his seventh Memorial Day speech.  Bush once said:

Behind every grave of a fallen soldier is a story of the grief that came to a wife, a mother, a child, a family, or a town.

Instead of making another meaningless speech, perhaps Mr. Bush should spend his Memorial Day learning each and every one of those stories.

 

Tags:

Our Grand-Children Will Ask, Why Didn't We Impeach Bush?

   This comes straight from the Daily Kos and it should be read by everyone on this planet because it pretty much lays out the immoral character of George Bush.

 

2007: Summer of Death and Lies

by kidneystones May 26, 2007

Washington's summer warmth returned this week leading President Bush to stand in the Rose Garden beneath perfect blue skies, as is his wont, and lie his fucking face off to the American people and the world one more time.

The Summer of Love  in '67 came just once but George Bush's mulching and manure spreading is forever, a perpetual crap-spewing machine. Nothing ever grows in George Bush's garden though, except lies, the number of dead, dollars lost and, of course, the stink.

A humbler man might have feared facing the guardians of truth and justice, known to some as "the lap-dog press", but Bush, if he knows anything at all, has the trainer's touch and understands exactly where and how bellies should be scratched. If that happens to look like a reach-around to pornographically-inclined observers, you're probably right. Nothing is quite as kinky and illuminating as watching the Cod-piece President conduct Obedience School.

Rose Garden Revisionism...a Heart-warming Refrain.

  As Fred Kaplan notes, the President doesn't even need to tell new lies. The old ones are more comforting. The press enfolds itself in the bloody rag the angry occupant of the Oval Office  waves before a frightened and beaten public like it's an old, familiar cardigan, searching there for the scent of Mr. Jelly-Bean, hoping to discover in the not-so-reassuring promises a sense of security they once found in a professional light-bulb salesman.  

This isn't Twenty-Mule Team Borax the squinty-eyed commander guy is selling. The drug is fear mixed with more than a dash of jingoism and hate laid over a solid base of outright racism and rage. And boy, does that play well in some circles, especially as the stack of corpses climbs higher. Burning brown bodies: children, women, men piled to the sky. Crack for the racist right.

Iraq is splitting at the seams, Afghanistan is exploding and Bin laden is out of sight and out of mind, replaced by the scary cypher known only as "those who attacked our shores and brought down the towers". The fact that the folks who brought down the towers also went down in the attack means nothing. Especially when so many in the press have been going down for so long. Dripping.

Junkie-President and Fear-monger found a rich vein of hate, racism and fear among the twisted remains at Ground Zero they've been milking ever since, bleeding America white. Literally.

Brown Americans will be forced to carry plastic laminated ID cards issued by the state declaring: "I'm not Them." Not yet, at least; in the eyes of the law, that is, for now. Heirs presumptive to the Oval Throne boast they'd like to "double Guantanamo". Look for a boom in orange-jump suit futures.

Kill Our Children? Bin Laden may not get the chance. America's former erstwhile ally is too busy now reaping the rewards of American madness, counting the secular moderates who have already fallen in Iraq, new home of the Islamic authoritarian nightmare.

George Bush feeds farm-boys from Kansas and father and mothers from Maine to California into the meat-grinder in Iraq. Terror U. Wonder what their t-shirts and caps look like. Fallujah 2004, Najef, Ramadi, Sadr City. Been there, done that, learned to form IED's and use them to spread carnage and terror across the region. As ye sow, so shall ye reap.

The Killer who ran and hid first in Daddy's money, then in drink and drugs until finally finding his niche as professional smile, who says his college years were wasted is now cheerleader-in-chief. The smile didn't last long however. The man who set a record for executions in Texas quickly got to work.

Out wheeled the Medicine Show and the rubes lined up for the life-giving elixir as they do each summer when Snake-Oil shucks and jives like the stand-up comedian he is. And they bought it. Why shouldn't he be cocky? Why should he worry about the low poll numbers? He's not fighting in Iraq and neither are his kids.

Profits rise, the rich get richer, the poor continue to suffer and sometimes complain. The loyal opposition is loyal only to their own place at the trough and a shot at a place closer to the cash spigot. Of the lives lost and families destroyed they care little.

Press buffoons bow and scrape before monsters and we find no hope. We're looking in the wrong place. Hope is found in the certain knowledge that the world can be a better place. Hope is found in the last wipe of the already clean table the waitress gives after the customer has left and her shift is finished. Hope is found in the joy we see in the eyes of our children; the delight they find in just being alive.

IMPEACH NOW. I'll call for the impeachment of the King of Lies until the last day of his illegal reign. I'll call for the impeachment of his minions who've lied to us all with a cynicism and abandon equal to their evil over-lord. I'll call for the impeachment of this corrupt, criminal regime that is sure to be damned by every historian for centuries to come. And I'll take comfort in the knowledge that I'm not alone and that there are millions more who'll fight and never run unto our dying breaths.

Why didn't Dems Impeach in the Summer of 2007?

Every generation of Americans is going to ask the same question. Why didn't Dems Impeach?

  Future generations will look back in revulsion at Bush; and wonder: what could Dems possibly have been thinking?

  How on earth after so many lies, after so much misery and so much bloodshed could Dems let these evil and corrupt monsters continue to rape the Constitution and murder thousands of young Americans and tens of thousands elsewhere?

  And the people will ask: where were you in 2007, in that summer of death and lies?

Tags: