Saturday, June 09, 2007

Giving up the Soul of America

Bush wages war against Iraq and loses! He wages war against America and wins. As someone said early on: let's give Iraq our Constitution. We don't have any use for it anymore.

Bush doesn't care that terrorism has gotten worse since he began the war. He doesn't care that when Ronald Reagan waged his "war on terrorism" in Lebanon, terrorism got worse. During the back-to-back Reagan/Bush debacles, there were a total of 306 acts of terrorism against US interests at home and abroad. During Clinton only 151. Those stats had been published by the Brookings Institution but are available from the FBI. [See: Terrorism in the United States Scroll down to pg 43 PDF file]

We measure Bush against FDR or Bill Clinton and find him lacking. Neocons measure him against other tyrants and find him a success. It was Pat Buchanan who spoke of the "culture war" at the GOP National Convention held in Houston in 1992. Though it was called a "hate speech" at the time, not even Buchanan could have had this in mind. What is left of Bush's support is most surely of another culture, a set of false values, a cynical Machiavellianism. It is not representative of the "America" I knew or grew up in. Could this, a conspiracy of Republicans to prop up a mean-spirited dictator, be the "culture war" that Pat Buchanan had in mind?

Bush calls his dictatorship a unitary executive.
When President Bush signed the new law, sponsored by Senator McCain, restricting the use of torture when interrogating detainees, he also issued a Presidential signing statement. That statement asserted that his power as Commander-in-Chief gives him the authority to bypass the very law he had just signed.

This news came fast on the heels of Bush's shocking admission that, since 2002, he has repeatedly authorized the National Security Agency to conduct electronic surveillance without a warrant, in flagrant violation of applicable federal law.

And before that, Bush declared he had the unilateral authority to ignore the Geneva Conventions and to indefinitely detain without due process both immigrants and citizens as enemy combatants.

-The Unitary Executive: Is The Doctrine Behind the Bush Presidency Consistent with a Democratic State? Findlaw
The Bush position flies in the face of Chief Justice John Marshall's decision in Marbury v. Madison, which held that the Court is the final arbiter of what is and is not the law. Marshall famously wrote there:
Between these alternatives there is no middle ground. The constitution is either a superior, paramount law, unchangeable by ordinary means, or it is on a level with ordinary legislative acts, and like other acts, is alterable when the legislature shall please to alter it.

If the former part of the alternative be true, then a legislative act contrary to the constitution is not law: if the latter part be true, then written constitutions are absurd attempts, on the part of the people, to limit a power in its own nature illimitable.

Certainly all those who have framed written constitutions contemplate them as forming the fundamental and paramount law of the nation, and consequently the theory of every such government must be, that an act of the legislature repugnant to the constitution is void.

This theory is essentially attached to a written constitution, and is consequently to be considered by this court as one of the fundamental principles of our society. It is not therefore to be lost sight of in the further consideration of this subject.

If an act of the legislature, repugnant to the constitution, is void, does it, notwithstanding its invalidity, bind the courts and oblige them to give it effect? Or, in other words, though it be not law, does it constitute a rule as operative as if it was a law? This would be to overthrow in fact what was established in theory; and would seem, at first view, an absurdity too gross to be insisted on. It shall, however, receive a more attentive consideration.

It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is. Those who apply the rule to particular cases, must of necessity expound and interpret that rule. If two laws conflict with each other, the courts must decide on the operation of each.

-Chief Justice John Marshal, MARBURY v. MADISON, 5 U.S. 137 (1803), 5 U.S. 137 (Cranch), WILLIAM MARBURY v. JAMES MADISON, Secretary of State of the United States, February Term, 1803
So many voices have been raised, so little has been done. It is fair to ask: is anyone paying attention? America! You have given up your Constitution. You have given up Due Process of Law. You have given up habeas corpus. You have given up the rule of law! If Bush is allowed to make it all up as he goes along, ruling by decree (signing statements), then you will have given up freedom itself. As William Wallace might have said: What will you do without freedom?
In its disregard for truth, public opinion, the separation of powers, the Geneva Conventions, the U.S. Constitution, and statutory law, the Bush administration has been more of a regime than an administration.

- Paul Craig Roberts, Are Democrats Turning A Blind Eye to Civil Liberty?
What did you get in return for this Faustian bargain? You have given up the soul of America.
Why Richard, it profits a man nothing to give his soul for the whole world... but for Wales?

-A Man for All Seasons
How did this come to pass? Simply, Bush did it the Adolf Hitler way. The tactics were described by Hermann Goering to American psychologist, Dr. Gustav Gilbert, at Nuremberg. Goering, we can imagine, slapped his thigh, laughed, and called the whole process "easy". Even before his capture and trial, Goering was shooting off his mouth about the Reichstag Fire, a "terrorist" act exploited by Hitler to justify the seizure of dictatorial powers, the end of German democracy.
General Franz Halder, provided evidence on the Reichstag Fire at the Nuremberg War Crimes Trial in 1946.

At a luncheon on the birthday of Hitler in 1942 the conversation turned to the topic of the Reichstag building and its artistic value. I heard with my own ears when Goering interrupted the conversation and shouted: "The only one who really knows about the Reichstag is I, because I set it on fire!" With that he slapped his thigh with the flat of his hand.

After the Reichstag Fire on 27th February, 1933, Goering launched a wave of violence against members of the German Communist Party and other left-wing opponents of the regime. He also joined with Heinrich Himmler, head of the Schutz Staffeinel, in setting up Germany's concentration camps.-Spartacus, Hermann Goering
You will find the same account in William Shirer's The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich. It is often quipped that the difference between the Reichstag Fire and 911 is that no one died in the Reichstag fire.

The Bush strategy was originally outlined by Adolf Hitler himself:
The broad mass of the nation ... will more easily fall victim to a big lie than to a small one.

- Adolph Hitler

Though we know it to be a big lie, Bush still links his war against Iraq with the events of 9/11. By now, I should not have to repeat the obvious. The mainstream media has apparently not made the point effectively: Bush's invasion of Iraq had nothing whatever to do with 911. Saddam had nothing whatsoever to do with 911. Iraq had nothing to do with the "war on terrorism" until after US troops showed up in Iraq. Since that time, the war in Iraq has made terrorism worse as it has made of US troops a convenient target.

These are all issues about which Bush continues to lie. The Bush regime deliberately lied to Americans about Saddam's "weapons of mass destruction". Colin Powell has since apologized for his fraudulent presentation to the United Nations.

In the meantime, the war in Iraq grinds on. Thousands more will die so that Bush might enjoy absolute rule in what had been the "land of the free". How long can the American people assuage their consciences with a sop to naivete: but we were duped!

Hopes that a Democratic majority might moderate a radical White House have faded. Bush flack Tony Snow raises the specter of "permanent bases", presumably to guard oil fields seized by the US. Bushies now talk about a permanent presence of between 30,000-40,000 troops. This premised, of coruse, upon a friendly government in Baghdad and, that in turn, implies a series of CIA sponsored coups until the US gets what it wants. Viet Nam redux.

Is that what "bringing to Democracy to Iraq" was supposed to be about? In fact, no! It is another product of the "bait and switch" White House. When nothing else done by Bush has worked for anyone but Exxon-Mobil and Halliburton, what chance has yet another crazy scheme to steal Iraqi oil and, thus prop up our inarticulate tin horn dictator in Washington?

In the meantime, the ever courageous Dennis Kucinich says that Bush's planned theft of Iraqi oil is a war crime. Kucinich is absolutely correct.

The so-called "war on terrorism" gets worse because it is lost, because Bush never defined winning, except perhaps privately to the oil barons who conspired with Dick Cheney at what was intended to be a secret meeting of the "Energy Task Force". The very idea of "permanent bases" gave the game away. Bush's war against the people of Iraq was never intended to be won. It was never intended to be anything but an Orwellian state of emergency and endless war. It was never intended to end terrorism or to bring Democracy to Iraq. It was intended to distract the American public and keep George W. Bush in the White House. Let's look at things through George W. Bush's lens. Winning the war in Iraq means we leave and, in leaving, we lose the oil fields. Alas, Bush has embarked upon a "new frontier": tyranny and dictatorship.

Some notes on our "awakening" by Bill Moyers:

And now for something completely different:

Some additional resources:









Spread the word:

21 comments:

Psychomikeo said...

You know things are weird when I find myself agreeing with Buchanan on alot things. The permanent bases
were a part of the PNAC.

Toby said...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9JE48XHKG64

Iraq had nothing to do with terrorism?

Toby said...

no link between Saddam and al Qaeda?

Dream on man, go read the sites of the Baathists still at large like uruknet, these people have long ago admitted their cooperation with al Qaeda, it's a shame you have to look at this topic through a "what did Democrats say? What did Republicans say?"

They are both liars, go find the truth on your own man

Len Hart said...

Toby said...

Iraq had nothing to do with terrorism?

If so, what? Who? Weren't we told that the terrorists who perpetrated 911 were in Afghanistan? And if they weren't there, why did we invade Afghanistan?

Were we not also told that Bin Laden masterminded 911? Was he not hiding out in Afghanistan? Was he not also despised by Saddam who WOULD NOT TOLERATE BIN LADEN in Iraq?

In fact, Iraq, under Saddam, had absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the "terrorists" who were said to have pulled of 911. Saddam ruled Iraq with an iron fist and there most certainly were NO "terrorists " in Iraq when SAUDI terrorists were said to have pulled off 911.

Saudi terrorists!!! Why didn't we invade Saudi Arabia? Bush would be stumped for answer to that.

Check the archives of the BBC. You will learn that many of the so-called "terrorists" who were said by Bush and his crooked cabal to have perpetrated 911 are still alive and giving interviews. How did they get off the planes --especially the two planes that popped into parallel dimensions. I am referring to the airliner that DID NOT leave wreckage in PA and the airliner that DID NOT leave wreckage in either the Pentagon or the pristine Pentagon lawn.

About PA: no body parts were found at what was called the "crash scene". None! Local media also reported that UAL Flight 93 landed safely at Cleveland Hopkins Airport.

At least one of the "hijackers" still alive was said by Bushies to have been on board Flight 77 which crashed into the Pentagon. If that is correct, then when did he jump out? Did anyone see any parachutes over DC? Or did he do a tuck and roll across the pristine lawn?

Bush stonewalled all investigations of 911 for over a year. When he, at last, relented, he appointed a crook to head it up and would not allow administration officials to testify under oath. Some investigation. Innocent people don't behave that way.

Besides --in the days and weeks following 911, not even Bush was making the case that Iraq and Saddam was behind 911. Even later, when Colin Powell, took the case for war to the UN, the raison d'etre was WMD -NOT that Iraq had anything to do with 911.

It was only when it became clear that there were NO WMD in Iraq that Bushies had to come up with another story to tell about Iraq. Following were several EX POST FACTO rationales for war. NONE were true. Even then, the connection with 911 was only implied --NEVER spelled out.

I could go on ...fact is: the official 911 conspiracy theory is pure bullshit!

Len Hart said...

In the run up to war, NO ONE said that 911 was perpetrated by Bathists....

That's just more bullshit puked up by Bush AFTER his other fuckin lies are exposed.

Len Hart said...

Not even the Bushies claimed a link between al Qaeda and Saddam.

Secondly, al Qaeda means "the base". It was a creation of the CIA when the US was backing "al Qaeda" in the Afghan war with the Soviet Union.

Saddam had nothing to do with it. Moreover, not even Bush claims Saddam had anything whatsoever to do with 911.

Len Hart said...

As one time director of the CIA there are probably more and deeper links between George H.W. Bush and Al Qaeda than between Al Qaeda and Saddam.

I am absolutely fed up with the lying bastards in the Bush clan.

I met and interviewed Bush Sr. His favorite topic seemed to have been eating dog lip in Beijing. Years later, as President, he would throw up all over the Prime Minister of Japan. Must have been dog lip again.

What a family!!!!!

Len Hart said...

Psychomikeo said...

The permanent bases
were a part of the PNAC.


Indeed! It was never about 911, Saddam, OR al Qaeda.

It's all about OIL!

Liberality said...

A good web site to check out concerning 9/11 is: http://stj911.org/
There academics study what happened to America on that day to determine the truth.

Len Hart said...

Liberality said...

A good web site to check out concerning 9/11 is: http://stj911.org/
There academics study what happened to America on that day to determine the truth.


I am browsing that site now. It does seem to be comprehensive. Sadly, the truth will never be known and Bush knows that. That's why he blocked any investigation for over a year.

The rules of evidence are somewhat different in the court of public opinion. If Bush were pure and innocent, he would have been better off had he INSISTED upon a complete and thorough investigation. Alas, he chose to cover it all up.

I try to avoid the specific "conspiracy theories". It's enough, for now, to poke holes in the "official conspiracy theory" and the holes are big enough to drive a Mack truck through.

Indeed, some wreckage was found at the Pentagon but it doesn't look like any airliner wreckage I've covered and I've covered some. Again, Bush would have been better off had there been a REAL investigation in which witnesses testify under oath.

Then again...maybe he wouldn't have been better off. Maybe he would be rotting in a cell awaiting the death penalty by now.

damien said...

The lie continues about alleged links between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda. These claims have been soundly refuted from multiple credible sources including a US Senate Intelligence Committee Report and a declassified US Defense Department Report both of which discounted any significant links. These represent considered views by the best of US Intelligence from a broad range of sources in Iraq and the region, and from within Saddam's inner circle. Here are some relevant links: (1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9)

This is from a Think Progress quoting from the Sep 2006 Senate Intelligence Committee's Phase 2 Report:

[Bin] Ladin generally opposed collaboration [with Baghdad]. (p. 65)

According to debriefs of multiple detainees — including Saddam Hussein and former Deputy Prime Minister Tariq Aziz — and capture documents, Saddam did not trust al-Qa'ida or any other radical Islamist group and did not want to cooperate with them. (p. 67)

Aziz underscored Saddam’s distrust of Islamic extremists like bin Ladin, stating that when the Iraqi regime started to see evidence that Wahabists had come to Iraq, "the Iraqi regime issued a decree aggressively outlawing Wahabism in Iraq and threatening offenders with execution." (p. 67)

Another senior Iraqi official stated that Saddam did not like bin Ladin because he called Saddam an "unbeliever." (p.73)

Conclusion 1: … Postwar findings indicate that Saddam Hussein was distrustful of al-Qa'ida and viewed Islamic extremists as a threat to his regime, refusing all requests from al Qa'ida to provide material or operational support. Debriefings of key leaders of the former Iraqi regime indicate that Saddam distrusted Islamic radicals in general, and al Qa'ida in particular… Debriefings also indicate that Saddam issued a general order that Iraq should not deal with al Qa'ida. No postwar information suggests that the Iraqi regime attempted to facilitate a relationship with bin Ladin. (p. 105)

Conclusion 5:… Postwar information indicates that Saddam Hussein attempted, unsuccessfully, to locate and capture al-Zarqawi and that the regime did not have a relationship with, harbor, or turn a blind eye toward Zarqawi. (p. 109)


Here is what CIA agent Lindsay Moran had to say about the whole litany of Bush lies:

"During my short tenure in Iraqi Operations, I met one woman who had covered Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program for more than a decade. She admitted to me, unequivocally, that the CIA had no definitive evidence whatsoever that Saddam Hussein's regime possessed WMD, or that Iraq presented anything close to an imminent threat to the United States. Another CIA analyst, whose opinion I'd solicited about the connection between Al-Qa'ida and Iraq, looked at me almost shamefacedly, shrugged, and said, "They both have the letter q?" And a colleague who worked in the office covering Iraqi counterproliferation reported to me that her mealy-mouthed pen pusher of a boss had gathered together his minions and announced, "Let's face it. The president wants us to go to war, and our job is to give him a reason to do it."

Toby, if you are really interested in knowing about al Qaeda, then I suggest this account by Nafeez Mosaddeq Ahmed.

Len Hart said...

Liberality said...

A good web site to check out concerning 9/11 is: http://stj911.org/

From that link I found this interesting podcast:Visibility 9-11

damien said...

The lie continues about alleged links between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda. These claims have been soundly refuted from multiple credible sources including a US Senate Intelligence Committee Report and a declassified US Defense Department Report both of which discounted any significant links.

And thanks for the links where I found this except:

The CIA learned in late September 2002 from a high-level member of Saddam Hussein's inner circle that Iraq had no past or present contact with Osama bin Laden and that the Iraqi leader considered bin Laden an enemy of the Baghdad regime, according to a recent Senate Intelligence Committee report.

Also from your site: The 9/11 Commission Report: a 571-page lie

Perhaps, if we ever weed out and expose all the various lies, the truth will somehow emerge:

We must fall back upon the old axiom that when all other contingencies fail, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.

-Doyle's Sherlock Holmes


And...

There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact.

That sums up the nature of the Bush deception. The public was presented via the media with carefully selected and obvious facts. The rest was concealed when Bush quashed all investigation, and, later, when he allowed bogus investigations in which administration officials were not required to give evidence under oath.

SadButTrue said...

"I try to avoid the specific "conspiracy theories". It's enough, for now, to poke holes in the 'official conspiracy theory' and the holes are big enough to drive a Mack truck through."

My approach exactly. As with the Kennedy assassinations, it is not necessary to know what actually happened. It is enough to know that what we are told happened is impossible, and that for some reason the government and several of its agencies found it necessary to concoct a story that holds water in the manner of a collander.

Which begs the question WHY?

Len Hart said...

SadButTrue said...

As with the Kennedy assassinations, it is not necessary to know what actually happened. It is enough to know that what we are told happened is impossible

I don't know anyone who still clings to the Warren Commission report. Again --it was the holes in the "official theory" that killed it off. The Warren Commission report was wedded to the idea of a lone assassin even though witnesses insisted upon at least one shot from the grassy knoll.

The Zapruder fillm, when it was at last released, made it possible for people to make up their own minds. I think they have done just that. The fatal shot which occurs on Frame 313 came from the front. That single fact shoots down the work of the entire commission. Gerald Posner, of course, wrote a book called "Case Closed" in which he tried to convince people that JFK's head moved forward from frame 313. The head did move forward but only before Frame 313. From 313, the head moves dramatically backward.

Apparently Posner never heard of Occam's Razor.

In order to support the lone gunman idea, he was forced to posit all manner of absurdities, most prominently, the "jet effect". I have reams of experimental evidence that raises doubts that there is such an "effect". Having grown up in West Texas, I have fired a gun or two. I have NEVER seen anything fall forward upon being hit by lead of any caliber. Posner was biased going in.

Anonymous said...

To be fair, Pat Buchanan has been no fan of the Bush administration for many years. Any of his columns on Antiwar.com or Amconmag.com will illustrate that handily.

PTCruiser said...

All that, and impeachment is off the table?

Len Hart said...

Anonymous said...

To be fair, Pat Buchanan has been no fan of the Bush administration for many years

And, to be fair, he is reasonably intelligent and articulate. Some have even described him as "charming". I enjoy his exchanges with Eleanor Clift on The McLaughlin Group. But I cannot and will not buy into his right wing extremism despite the fact that Buchanan describes himself as center/right. He's not too far wrong is his self-description.

There has always been an extreme right wing in this country. Those are the folks who were photographed giving the Nazi salute to Hindenburg victims following the disaster in Lakehurst.

It has always been my hope that more moderate voices would abandon Bush when it became clear that his extremist, anti-Constitutional agenda is radically at odds with America's core right wing. I often wonder where George Wallace would have come down on Bush's corporate war. Wallace, as you may recall, enjoyed the support of a working class both north and south. But the Viet Nam war --a wedge issue -- made it impossible for a "populist" candidate to unite anti-war intellectuals with labor. More about that later.

PTCruiser said...

All that, and impeachment is off the table?

I'm afraid so. The feeling is one of disillusionment and despair. I cannot recall a time in which disenfranchisement was so keenly felt.

Anonymous said...

The events leading up to 9/11 and the subsequent evasion of Iraq and Afghanistan was not to bring democracy to Iraq or to protect America's oil resources, although, it definitely was a bonus for the oil barons in the government.

Look deeper into this quagmire and you'll soon discover, as I have, that these were orchestrated events to protect and preserve the state of Israel - PERIOD! We've managed to utterly destroy Iraq for their benefit. Next on the table is Iran's destruction. This is a "holy" war for the express purpose of securing Jewish hegemony in the region with the possibility that it will envelop the entire world eventually.

Have any of you ever wondered why the White House has been kosherised, why George W. Bush carries a copy of the Talmud, or why there are more Jewish politicians in our government than ever before? Don't kid yourselves - the the Israeli Lobby and AIPAC are the motivating factors behind everything that has happened in this country and abroad since GWB took his illegally stolen position in the oval office. Today, America can only be considered as an arm of the Israeli state waiting to do their bidding.

Open your minds and wake up before it's too late.

Davol White said...

Investigations into the intelligence turned over to Israel by the Propaganda agency setup by Rumsfield called the Office of Special Plans has been postponed again till September. This office did way more then the CIA to cook up intelligence to justify the war, and according to the allegation of this court case was used to commit treason by turning over intelligence to Israel. It's true that war has been used for a distraction since before Henry VIII, but what I find really scary about what this article says is what it all means. What it means is that trashing our Constitution, and waging an endless war for the benefit of inside no-bid contract corporations has been a success. The ridiculous new embassy will be ready in a couple more months. Everything is going according to plan. The only thing that can stop this plan is a groundswell of popular opinion taking over. In other words, only true democracy can save America now. Good luck with that.

Len Hart said...

Anonymous said...

Look deeper into this quagmire and you'll soon discover, as I have, that these were orchestrated events to protect and preserve the state of Israel - PERIOD! We've managed to utterly destroy Iraq for their benefit. Next on the table is Iran's destruction. This is a "holy" war for the express purpose of securing Jewish hegemony in the region with the possibility that it will envelop the entire world eventually.

I don't doubt that for a minute. With one important exception -I don't think "President" Dick Cheney gives a shit about Israel. It's about the oil and total world domination. Dick would turn on Israel in a heart beat. He kisses up to them because he knows that the GOP fundie base thinks that Israel is chosen by God yada yada yada the rapture yada yada the Temple yada yada....What the religious zealots haven't figured out is that the Cheney wing is just using them.

David said...

what I find really scary about what this article says is what it all means. What it means is that trashing our Constitution, and waging an endless war for the benefit of inside no-bid contract corporations has been a success.

That's it! The world fascist state is here and now! It'll take a revolution the likes of which the American people have not the stomach for to get rid of it.

We are fucked!

Anonymous said...

Bush is a radical antichrist jew, not a Christian. The SOB should be run out of DC and the US. Let him go to his beloved zionist Israel, where he belongs.