Wednesday, April 26, 2006

A Grassroots "Velvet Revolution" Underway in America

An insurrection against the Bush regime is underway right now in America. It may turn out to be nothing less than a "velvet revolution" that brings down Bush's lawless regime. The best part is that it's entirely non-violent and legal; there is absolutely nothing George W. Bush can do about it —except throw one of his well-known temper tantrums. It's an impeachment juggernaut that will peak as Bush's support continues to wither away.

In the latest developments, the Illinois General Assembly seems certain to join a rising chorus in other state assemblies —Vermont and California —seeking the impeachment of George W. Bush. Meanwhile, Democratic state committees in New Mexico, Wisconsin, Nevada and North Carolina are sure to support articles of impeachment sponsored by Rep. John Conyers, D-Mich. Here's the good news: the impeachment movement is no longer quixotic. It has growing grassroots traction. The GOP had best pay attention. This impeachment movement is positioned to advance on Washington where it will dictate the national agenda.

Impeaching Bush State by State

The legal basis for these unprecedented state-level actions was discovered when, according to Steven Leser, Illinois Rep. Karen A. Yarbrough "stumbled on a little known and never utilized rule of the U.S. House of Representatives." The rule was written in a book formerly known as Jefferson's Manual, which, according to C-SPAN, "is a book of rules of procedure and parliamentary philosophy … written by Thomas Jefferson in 1801 … [used by the House] as a supplement to its standing rules." Section LIII, sec. 603 states, "There are various methods of setting an impeachment in motion … [one of them is] by charges transmitted from the legislature of a State …"

Each of the three resolutions mentions Iraq lies, torture and illegal spying, with slight variations in tone and specifics. Assemblyman Paul Koretz's California resolution (which includes Dick Cheney) and the Illinois resolution both include the leak of Valerie Plame's identity, while Vermont's focuses almost exclusively on Bush's most salient transgression, his illegal spying on Americans. The spying charge leads the other two resolutions' list of charges as well. ...

Here's why this grassroots movement has legs. Bush's approval rating is down to 32 percent. If the elections were held today, the "decider" would get only 17 electoral votes from 3 states that voted heavily for Bush in the last election: Alabama, Utah, and Wyoming. [See: SurveyUSA]

As I previously pointed out: Bush is chalking up net negatives in what had been "red" states: -12% in South Carolina, -17% in Indiana, -18% in Virginia, and -19% in Tennessee. The really bad news for Bush is that he is losing his base support in Texas where he now has a net negative 14 percentage points. Bush has no legs, no broad base support from which to counter what is beginning to look like an impeachment juggernaut.

Here's an update on another development:

Council demands Bush impeachment

BERKELEY: City joins Santa Cruz, Arcata, San Francisco in move

By Alan Lopez, CONTRA COSTA TIMES

Berkeley has joined three other California cities in calling for the impeachment of President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney.

In a resolution that will be sent to U.S. House Speaker Dennis Hastert, R-Ill., the Berkeley City Council accuses the president and vice president of, among other things: defrauding the country and Congress regarding the Iraq war; authorizing torture in violation of the Geneva Conventions; ordering secret surveillance of U.S. citizens; and failing to respond quickly to the Gulf Coast hurricane.

The council unanimously approved the resolution Tuesday and also took a step toward giving residents a voice. The Berkeley Peace and Justice Commission will recommend whether the city should ask voters for their opinion in an advisory ballot measure. ...
Additional resources:

'Toons by Dante Lee; use only with permission

HOME

Tuesday, April 25, 2006

"Don't it make your red states turn blue? "

Bushies must be singin' the blues. Throw in a bit about "prison", "rain", a "train" and "momma" and the latest polling news might become the perfect country and western song. I hear that whistle 'a blowin'.

A phone poll by Opinion Research Corporation for CNN is bad news for Bush's failing "presidency". Only 32 percent of about 1,000 Americans polled said they approve of Bush's performance. It gets worse for Bush: that big chunk of red states in mid-America —forget about it! It no longer exists. Let's put the latest poll numbers in perspective with confirming data from even earlier studies: if the elections were held today, the "decider" would get only 17 electoral votes from only 3 states that voted went heavily for Bush in the last election: Alabama, Utah, and Wyoming. [See: SurveyUSA]

Now if that were not dramatic enough, consider that Bush is chalking up net negatives in staunchly Republican states: -12% in South Carolina, -17% in Indiana, -18% in Virginia, and -19% in Tennessee. Here's the capper. In Texas —where bad air, bullsh*t, and Bush are notable exports —George W. Gets a net negative 14 percentage points. Put another way: 55% in Texas disapprove of the job Bush is doing.

Bush's fall from grace in so-called "swing" states is tautological at this point but it may turn out to be apocalyptic for the GOP. Take the cases of Florida and Ohio, battlegrounds where Bush carved out or stole his controversial victories in the years 2000 and 2004. Now Bush gets a net negative in Ohio and a net negative 22 in Florida. One wonders: can DieBold steal enough votes without fritzin' out the computer?

The deluded decider!

Asked whether "honest and trustworthy" describes the president, 40 percent said yes, down from 56 percent a year ago.

Bush's image continues to fall apart as reality sets in. A year ago, some 62 percent thought Bush "... strong and decisive". Less than half think so now. What a difference quagmire, Katrina, and talk of a "unitary executive" can do. Dare we declare that America is now de-hypnotized?

GOP rats are jumping ship, warning Bush that keeping Rumsfeld could wind up costing the GOP the House and the Senate. Those warnings are borne out by the numbers cited above. In short: Bush may have dealt his party a near fatal blow. Inasmuch as the GOP has become the very picture of corruption, evil, prejudice and sheer pig-headedness, it may turn out to be the only good thing to come out of this debacle.
'Toons by Dante Lee; use only with permission

HOME

Monday, April 24, 2006

"Free My Country, My Ass!!"; U.S taking sides in Iraq Civil War?

Sunni Arabs have accused the Shiite majority and U.S. forces of operating and supporting death squads throughout Iraq as charges surface that U.S. torture of Iraqis continues with apparent impunity. The latest charges by Sunni arabs now take on an ominous political complexion: the U.S. has taken the Shiite side in an Iraq civil war.

The charges in themselves expose the no-win situation that Bush has gotten the U.S. into in Iraq; they expose the fraudulent nature of the war. But an Iraqi civil war is not the worst of the nightmare scenarios; an incompetent Bush administration siding with one faction over another most certainly is.

Inspectors Find More Torture at Iraqi Jails

Top General's Pledge To Protect Prisoners 'Not Being Followed'

Ellen Knickmeyer, Washington Post Foreign Service

BAGHDAD -- Last Nov. 13, U.S. soldiers found 173 incarcerated men, some of them emaciated and showing signs of torture, in a secret bunker in an Interior Ministry compound in central Baghdad. The soldiers immediately transferred the men to a separate detention facility to protect them from further abuse, the U.S. military reported.

Since then, there have been at least six joint U.S.-Iraqi inspections of detention centers, most of them run by Iraq's Shiite Muslim-dominated Interior Ministry. Two sources involved with the inspections, one Iraqi official and one U.S. official, said abuse of prisoners was found at all the sites visited through February. U.S. military authorities confirmed that signs of severe abuse were observed at two of the detention centers.

But U.S. troops have not responded by removing all the detainees, as they did in November. Instead, according to U.S. and Iraqi officials, only a handful of the most severely abused detainees at a single site were removed for medical treatment. Prisoners at two other sites were removed to alleviate overcrowding. U.S. and Iraqi authorities left the rest where they were. ...

If Bush has allied de facto with the Shiite majority, America will have given up its last tenuous claim to being an honest broker. Most certainly Bush cannot square his empty "freedom" rhetoric with his support of a Shiite theocracy —especially one of his making.

If the Civil War lacks some of the outward signs of such a conflict, it's only because the Shiite leadership is content to let Americans and Brits run interference for them. Shiite leaders are not stupid. They understand that Bush is damned politically if he stays —but a full-fledged civil war will break out when U.S. troops are not around to take up the slack. It's hard to imagine how Bush —and his NeoCon propagandists —will be able to declare a victory and just leave. In the meantime, both sides have adopted Bush's simplistic lexicon; i.e. a "terrorist" is whomever either side disagrees with.

The facts on the ground, however, do not lend themselves easily to spin. Is there a chance that when the Americans are gone, everyone will make nice nice and share power? Only in your Bush inspired delusions! When the Americans no longer buffer the conflict, one side or the other, i.e., either Sunni or Shiite, will win. But only at the end of a bloody civil war. I see "theocracy" —not light —at the end of the tunnel.

But how do Iraqis themselves feel about that? 27-year-old Zeyad, a Baghdad dentist, surfs the net and blogs, He has been quoted in numerous reports recently reacting to an incipient theocracy in his country: "I wanted to kill someone after reading all that. Free my country, my ass! Do I have to immigrate and leave my country ... [to be free]?"

If Bush is allowed to get away with trashing the U.S. Constitution, replacing it with an insane and bogus "unitary executive" nonsense, Americans will be asking the same thing of their homeland: Will I have to leave my country to be free?

Some essential resources:
On a peripherally related topic, I am proud to allifiate with Progressive Blogosphere. You will find their headlines synidcated on this blog. Check out the nav bar. I am making this shameless plug as the topic of blogs has come up a number of times in the comments section here. There seems to be consensus that the blogosphere has become in a very short time an absolutely essential counter to the corporate mainstream media. The words "mainstream" and "corporate" are one and the same; it's a recipe for the same tired old paradigm, a guarantee that we stay in the the mess we're in.

Progressive Blogosphere has reached an incredible audience in a very short time and I am convinced that that will help many another blogger like myself. The name of the game is nothing less than making truth and informed opinion heard above the right wing noise and corporate propaganda machine.

'Toons by Dante Lee; use only with permission

HOME

Saturday, April 22, 2006

Bush Exports American Sleaze, Moral Rot, Perversity, and the Torture, Rape of Children!

George W. Bush is not the only American President to spread and exploit a pernicious myth: the moral superiority of the United States! Bollocks! Under Bush, our most publicized export has not been morality, freedom, or opportunity. It is, rather, torture, brutality, war crimes, perversion and moral –or, more precisely -immoral stench.

Clearly –American politicians have espoused and exploited this myth just as George W. Bush has capitalized on the idea that individual Americans are targeted by international terrorists who “…jest hate freedom”, terrorists willing to blow themselves up because we are more free and possess more material goods. I’m sorry –but having a three car garage and lots of cheap gasoline are not among my values. If that's what it means to be American, then I've been living in the wrong country since birth! I have nothing but contempt for anyone who's willing to turn a blind eye to torture in return for cheap gas which has, obviously, not been forthcoming despite Bush's many outrages to human decency.

And if George Bush were correct in believing that being free in America means having enough material wealth to waste resources in a Hummer, then I say we deserve our fate, a fate which has always been in our own hands –not the so-called “terrorists”. As Sartre said: "Man is nothing but what he makes of himself". That means that when you screw up, you've got no one to blame but yourself. Clearly, then, Bush is no existentialist! He continues to blame everyone but himself for the consequences of his evil intentions.

I submit to you that Bush’s war on terrorism is not merely a failure; it's as fraudulent as his wars against the people of Afghanistan and Iraq. Because of Bush’s war on terrorism, America, a net debtor nation thanks to Ronald Reagan and the GOP, has –at last –found some exports: brutality, perversity and torture.

If there is any good news to be found in the slimy residue of Bush’s sorry mal-administration it is this: a revolt against Bush seems to be brewing at the CIA where many are said to live in fear of indictments and subpoenas that may be coming down any day now. What’s called “Wehrmacht group” inside the CIA are leaking the sordid details about how the Bush administration conducted a program of torture and perversion at Abu Ghraib and how the Bush administration is deliberately trying to skirt U.S. and international laws with a program of ongoing “rendition”, that is, flying victims to other countries for the purpose of torture and other crimes.

Racking someone is bad enough but torture American-style seems especially abhorrent and always colored by more than a soupcon of sexual perversity, Satanism, and psycho-sexual morbidness that defies description in any language. Semour Hersh says that the U.S. has video tapes of children being raped, sodomized, tortured at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq.
" Some of the worst things that happened you don't know about, okay? Videos, um, there are women there. Some of you may have read that they were passing letters out, communications out to their men. This is at Abu Ghraib ... The women were passing messages out saying 'Please come and kill me, because of what's happened' and basically what happened is that those women who were arrested with young boys, children in cases that have been recorded. The boys were sodomized with the cameras rolling. And the worst above all of that is the soundtrack of the boys shrieking that your government has. They are in total terror. It's going to come out."

Hersh: Children Raped at Abu Ghraib

Reprehensible images to be found among unreleased photographs include images of rape, torture, mutilated animals, circles of candles, swastikas, and sexual activity among the torturers themselves, often in front of the detainees. [See: Sex Rituals of Abu Ghraib]

There’s much, much more. From Salon's exclusive:
"A review of all the computer media submitted to this office revealed a total of 1,325 images of suspected detainee abuse, 93 video files of suspected detainee abuse, 660 images of adult pornography, 546 images of suspected dead Iraqi detainees, 29 images of soldiers in simulated sexual acts, 20 images of a soldier with a Swastika drawn between his eyes, 37 images of Military Working dogs being used in abuse of detainees and 125 images of questionable acts."

It’s hard to believe that the entire torture program is anything other than an excuse by perverts to indulge in psycho-sexual and/or satanic rituals that might be more at home inside the walls of the Skull and Bones or the Nazi SS than in a legitimate program to elicit useful information in a “war on terrorism”. In fact, the “war on terrorism” itself, premised as it is upon lies and propaganda, seems to be but an excuse to indulge satanic perversity not seen since the Holocaust. As one blogger put it: “…it's right out of a dark occultist's playbook.” Indeed, it is. And who but a Bonesman could be its chief architect? Who but the man who set records for executions in Texas could create its policies? Who but the man who ridiculed death row inmates would defend the perverted rationale of torture? Who but someone who got his jollies blowing up horned toads in West Texas could defend it, encourage it, and, at the same time, deny it and cover it up?

This program of torture seems sure to create terrorists where none had been before. Yet, the Bush administration’s defense and active cover up of these atrocities bespeaks its complicity in heinous crimes against humanity. The only rational explanation is this: Bush needs new enemies to justify a permanent occupation.

Meanwhile, a report on U.S. interrogation tactics entitled “Human Rights Standards Applicable to the United States' Interrogation of Detainees,” challenges the various rationalizations cited inexplicably in defense of an act that had been denied by Bushies. Why defend an act that had not occurred? Scott Horton, a human rights activist has since cited various “torture memoranda” to disprove Rumsfeld's position that Abu Ghraib was but the work of a few “bad apples”. The reports by Seymour Hersh are consistent with Horton’s work; they tend to support the conclusion that Abu Ghraib is but one “island” in the American gulag archipelago. Torture is Bush’s policy and it will be his sorry legacy, a cancer on the American body politic, an indictment of the national morality, a final chapter in what Theodore Dreiser called "Tragic America".

There is cause for concern throughout the CIA. Despite fawning rationalizations by Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, at least one FBI attorney had written that “rendition” is illegal. Indeed, international law speaks to the commission of the acts themselves, not the location. The Bush administration’s defense of a program that it contradictorily denies is irrelevant, a shallow, transparent dodge. Clearly — “rendition” is designed to circumvent American laws. It's consistent with Bush’s delusional mindset: he is above the laws and the rule of law does not apply to him. This is clearly psychotic and the doctrine of the "unitary executive" is just symptom of a very, very sick mind.

U.N. Exec Decries Illegal Iraq Detainees

By ALEXANDER G. HIGGINS,

Associated Press Writer

GENEVA (AP) - Some 15,000 detainees are being held in Iraq by government ministries in violation of Iraqi law, and nearly as many are being held by U.S.-led multinational forces, a senior U.N. official said Friday.

Only the country's justice ministry is permitted to hold detainees for longer than 72 hours, but Gianni Magazzeni, head of the U.N. Human Rights Office in Baghdad, said most Iraqi-held detainees are under the control of other government officials, naming Iraq's interior and defense ministries in particular.

``Those are still in the thousands and would be not in a situation which is in line with Iraqi law,'' he said at the U.N.'s European headquarters in Geneva. Magazzeni, who took over the post in mid-February, was visiting Geneva and said he was on his way back to Baghdad. It was unclear where Magazzeni obtained his figures for detainees held by the Iraqi government. ...
For more on the subject, see the Sex, Drugs, Mind Control and Torture index.
More about how Bush's Iraq debacle is laced with stories of sadism and sexual perversion:

The Missing Girls of Iraq

Sex trafficking, virtually nonexistent under Saddam Hussein, has resurfaced in Iraq. TIME reports on a seldom-discussed epidemic: girls being kidnapped and sold to brothels.

...

Safah is part of a seldom-discussed aspect of the epidemic of kidnappings in Iraq: sex trafficking. No one knows how many young women have been kidnapped and sold since the fall of Saddam Hussein in 2003. The Organization for Women's Freedom in Iraq, based in Baghdad, estimates from anecdotal evidence that more than 2,000 Iraqi women have gone missing in that period. ...
Why we're publishing the new Abu Ghraib photos

America -- and the world -- has the right to know what was done in our name.
By Walter Shapiro ...

More than a "few rotten apples"

A U.S. soldier who tortured an Iraqi general to death got his wrist slapped. Yet his appalling sentence made a certain sense.
By Brig. Gen. David Irvine and David Danzig

America can't take it anymore

The Bush administration has embraced torture as a key part of the "war on terror." Finally, members of Congress, the military and the CIA are speaking out against the abuse.
By Mark Follman

Contract to torture

A rare look at the entire Abu Ghraib report reveals that inexperienced, under-supervised private-sector employees actively took part in horrifying prisoner abuse.
By Osha Gray Davidson


'Toons by Dante Lee; use only with permission

HOME

A Family of Liars and War Criminals: The Latest 'Smoking Gun'

Normally, I would not consign so much space to a single article. But these revelations cannot be ignored; they must not be relegated.

They should be shouted from the rooftops.

This is not a single "smoking gun"; this is one of a MYRIAD of smoking guns that should lead to Bush's impeachment and removal from office. They should lead inexorably to war crimes trials.

White House knew there were no WMD: CIA

The CIA had evidence Iraq possessed no weapons of mass destruction six months before the 2003 US-led invasion but was ignored by a White House intent on ousting Saddam Hussein, a former senior CIA official said, according to CBS.

Tyler Drumheller, who headed CIA covert operations in Europe during the run-up to the Iraq war, said intelligence opposing administration claims of a WMD threat came from a top Iraqi official who provided the US spy agency with other credible information.

The source "told us that there were no active weapons of mass destruction programs," Drumheller said in a CBS interview to be aired on Sunday on the US network's 60 Minutes.

"The (White House) group that was dealing with preparation for the Iraq war came back and said they were no longer interested," he was quoted as saying in interview excerpts released by CBS on Friday.

"We said: 'Well, what about the intel?' And they said: 'Well, this isn't about intel anymore. This is about regime change'," added Drumheller, whose CIA operation was assigned the task of debriefing the Iraqi official.

He was the latest former US official to accuse the White House of setting an early course toward war in Iraq and ignoring intelligence that conflicted with its aim.

CBS said the CIA's intelligence source was former Iraqi Foreign Minister Naji Sabri and that former CIA Director George Tenet delivered the information personally to US President George W Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney and other top White House officials in September 2002. They rebuffed the CIA three days later.

"The policy was set. The war in Iraq was coming and they were looking for intelligence to fit into the policy," the former CIA agent told CBS.
Stay tuned to the cowboy. I am researching an article about Bush Sr, who raised the specter of the mushroom cloud in his run up to the Persian Gulf War I. Simply put, wars of aggression are crimes against the peace. Atrocities in the act of carrying out such a war are war crimes. U.S. law prohibits such violations of Nuremburg —so don't let anyone tell you that Nuremberg doesn't matter. Read U.S. Codes; Section 2441. This is serious stuff, folks. Of course we're talking about violations of Nuremberg, but we're also talking about capital crimes under U.S. law!

Bush administration committing treason

Tom DeLay, that paragon of virtue who spearheaded that impeachment movement, is now the figurehead of the congressional moral shambles that started out as the dubious "Contract with America."

If an extramarital affair deserves a censure vote, what does the implosion of our rights of privacy guaranteed by the Constitution deserve?

President Bush promised the American people that he would fire anyone working in his administration who was involved in leaks. What a surprise. The order came from our President himself. Both of these acts, plus the lies perpetrated on the American people about Saddam's weapons of mass destruction, Mr. Gaffney, are called treason.

The ludicrousness of tax cuts for the rich (elite) while the country is at war is fiscally and morally reprehensible. It has left us without the ability to deal with education, Social Security, and is eroding our ability to give aid to the poor. It has also left us without the strength to stand up to the real enemies of this country, Iran and North Korea.

Finally, please do not equate this quagmire with World War II. We had a dictator who was well on his way to world domination, not a tin horn [dictator wannabe] firing a shotgun from a podium. ...

Bush should resign

An excerpt:
George W. Bush should do the ultimate patriotic act for America. He should resign.

He should give up this miserable, unpopular and tragic presidency and return to Texas. [my comment: he should be arrested for felony violations of U.S. Codes; Section 2441 and tried in a court of law. When found guilty, he should be sentenced!]

There, he can reflect on the lives he has cost in Iraq, the huge deficits he is accountable for, the Medicare drug program and Katrina recovery messes he so incompetently created, the illegal spying he has promoted, and the enormous waste of time and money he has spent going around the country telling his lies to friendly, hand-picked Republican audiences who are most certainly in denial about how pitiful he is.

Louisville-area folks can do their patriotic act this fall. They can dump Anne Northrup for her rubber-stamping support of Bush's reckless, dangerous and misguided policies. ...
Bush should not merely resign. This man is armed and dangerous, a threat to U.S. Democracy, a traitor, a mass murderer by proxy, an arch criminal.
Americans, increasingly, are not buying his justifications for any of these positions. Yet Bush has made no effort to persuade them that his actions are sound, prudent or productive; rather, he takes offense when anyone questions his unilateral powers. He responds as if personally insulted.

—John Dean, Former White House Counsel, Nixon Administration


Bush must be brought to justice!
'Toons by Dante Lee; use only with permission

HOME

Friday, April 21, 2006

Bush's Fraudulent War on Terrorism

Bush would have you believe that "terrorism" is the greatest threat of the 21st century but that's according to Bush, Blair and the regime du jour in Israel. The fact is your chances of being killed by terrorists are tiny; your chances of getting killed while crossing any big city street in America is much higher. According to a United Nations report by Peter Heinlein, political violence has been dropping since the end of the cold war.

A report by the U.S. National Counterterrorism Center concedes that international terrorism has increased somewhat recently -but most of those incidents are linked to Kashmir. Has Bush ever proposed that we go to war with Kashmir? The Center's report concludes that terrorism is not the grave security threat that Bush and his GOP hangers-on would have you believe.

The Truth About Terrorism

0: People in the USA killed by terrorism/WMD in 2004.

0: People in the UK killed by terrorism/WMD in 2004.

0: People in the USA killed by terrorism/WMD in 2003.

0: People in the UK killed by terrorism/WMD in 2003.

0: People in the USA killed by terrorism/WMD in 2002.

0: People in the UK killed by terrorism/WMD in 2002.

2,752: in USA killed by terrorism in 2001 (all on 9/11).

—The Insider

In America the biggest beneficiaries of terrorism have been incumbent regimes, primarily Reagan, Bush Sr. and now Bush Jr. Is this co-incidental? If you believe pigs fly.

Waging "War" on nations said to be supporting or nurturing "terrorists" is counterproductive -unless it is the purpose of demagogues (Bush and Reagan) to exploit terrorism for political purposes. James I of England used "terrorism" to rally Protestants following the gun powder plot. Guy Fawkes was executed for high treason but not until James I denounced the act of terrorism, declaring "We dinna need the Papists now!" In fact, the gun powder that was found in the Houses of Parliament was traced to the government's own stores of armaments. Inside job? Fawkes' alleged attempt to blow up Parliament came at a time of great disillusionment with the reign of James I, Elizabeth's successor.

A grasp on power based on war and/or terror will prove to be fleeting, fading when the danger is seen to have passed. Ronald Reagan, like Bush now, waged a great "war on terrorism". "You can run but you can't hide", Reagan boasted. But after two years there was absolutely nothing to show for this great GOP war! When the Marine Barracks in Lebanon was blown up, Reagan simply withdrew. In fact, FBI Stats compiled and published by the Brookings Institute prove conclusively that over the two years that Reagan waged his great war, terrorism increased very nearly exponentially. At the end of this counter-productive war, so called terrorist attacks on U.S interests decreased.

More recently, Bush Sr's attack on Saddam Hussein following the Iraqi occupation of Kuwait came a time when Senior's approval ratings were probably even lower than Junior's are now. See Howard Zinn's "People's History of the United States".

Like Junior now, Bush Sr lied about his war against Iraq. Bush told the world that Hussein had developed a nuke. Where are those nukes? Where are those WMD? Where is a single truth told by any Bush at any time about anything?

At least one poll this week has Bush plunging into the 20's. What the polls don't measure is the level of outrage among those disapproving of Bush's performance. That will require a different methodology.

The recent polls may point to a sea change in American thinking, a major re-alignment that threatens what the GOP had hoped would be a permanent majority. Bush Sr was in the 20's ratings-wise when he decided to attack Iraq. John Sununnu boasted that Senior Bush's victory in Iraq would insure his re-election. But, it was not the war —as Carville would prove —it was the economy!

Bush Sr pioneered every tactic now employed by Shrub. It was not enough to get Pappa re-elected but it may very well be enough to get Junior indicted.

One would hope that at this point the nation will wake up! As I've said before: we would call a doctor an idiot who tells you to keep on doing whatever it is that's making you sick. Pappa's Bush and Ronald Reagan's failed experiments with fascism should have awakened this nation to the dangers. The back to back failures of these criminal administrations should have been warning enough. The GOP should already have been consigned to an ignominious history. What this nation needs is a party of the loyal opposition —not a party that schemes to set up a right wing, theocratic dictatorship.

'Toons by Dante Lee; use only with permission

HOME

Wednesday, April 19, 2006

Rumfeld's Fingerprints All Over Bush's Forgotten Quagmire

A civil war in Iraq overshadows yet another Bush failure: Afghanistan where the Taliban is reorganized and resurgent. The task of containing the "resurgency" has fallen to a force of some eleven thousand American servicemen who cannot be expected to prevent the Taliban from regaining power. Like the much bigger force in Iraq, American troop strength is completely inadequate for the job –a situation that has Rumsfeld’s finger prints all over it.

Bush, of course, paints a rosy picture of the situation in Afghanistan, calling his attack on that country an “…unqualified success.” But that’s not the picture that emerges from a recent report by the Council on Foreign Relations:
Council Special Report No. 12

Afghanistan’s Uncertain Transition
argues that Afghanistan is still far from stability. While the country has reestablished basic institutions of government, it has barely started to make them work. The government and its international supporters are challenged by a terrorist insurgency that has become more lethal and effective and that has bases in Pakistan, a drug trade that dominates the economy and corrupts the state, and pervasive poverty and insecurity.
Bush will have made terrorism worse. Nations that harbor terrorists, Bush told us, would be treated like the terrorists themselves. The question no one bothered to ask was simply this: just who are the terrorists and which nations harbor them? Any recent history of Saudi Arabia is highly suspicious and full of Bush family cronies —but instead of following those leads, the Bush administration worked to cover up its own connections with the Saudi royal family. Prominent Saudi royals were ushered out of the U.S. surreptitiously; the public, the media, the world was distracted by smoke and shattered glass if not smoke and mirrors. No one in the Bush administration has ever come forward with an innocent explanation. Anyone daring to question the official conspiracy theory is a traitor by Bush's convenient definition.

Since that time, numerous stories have surfaced about how Bush had planned to attack Iraq immediately but was dissuaded by Colin Powell. Afghanistan was offered up because it was said that the Taliban was harboring Osama Bin Laden –although no hard evidence against Bin Laden has surfaced since 1998.

The mentality in the White House seemed to be never let a good pretext to war go to waste. Whose ass got kicked seemed almost beside the point! An angry American populace wanted revenge, quick results, and easy victories. Bush was just the man to supply revenge but not results. And victories are yet to be attained at all.

Enough history. Fast forward to the dismal present, a time in which Bush has failed to subdue the civilian population against whom he has waged aggressive war upon a pack of lies –none of them having anything to do with righting the wrongs of 911. An increasing number of conservatives now denounce the bone headed decision to wage war on Iraq. As a quagmire, it surpasses Viet Nam. And unlike Viet Nam where blame could be equally dispersed among GOP and Democratic regimes alike, Iraq is a tar baby that is stuck to Bush’s foot and bush’s foot alone. Bush broke Iraq and since the attack his every action has made the quagmire worse.

Bush had promised a “Marshall Plan” to rebuild Afghanistan, the tiny country where he had hoped to grab an easy victory on the cheap. The defeat of the Taliban may have been cheap but the price of victory seems beyond the ability of the United States to obtain. $3 billion has been appropriated but this hardly amounts to a “Marshall Plan”. Of that amount, some $2.3 billion is sucked up by security and military items. What's left is earmarked for public relations, i.e. making Bush look good in an election year. In simpler times that might have fooled a nation of “poltroonish goosesteppers” –as H.L Mencken called his fellow Americans.

It doesn't matter than Karzai is a photogenic puppet. He has been called derisively the mayor of Kabul as war lords, bandits and drug dealers operate with impunity outside the city limits.

Nor can Bushies cite a draft constitution as evidence of success. A proposed charter fashioned under the guidance of the United States, is hardly a result that can be pointed to as evidence of “victory”. Rather, it celebrates religious intolerance and affirms Sunni supremacy even as Bush seems to be presiding over the rise of Shias in Iraq. Afghanistan, like Iraq, is most certainly worse off since the U.S. Attacked and invaded.

The Bush administration has learned nothing from the experience. Bush’s ham-fisted, NeoCon approach ignored common sense. At last, the NeoCon approach ignored J.S. Mill's admonition that tyranny by a majority is still tyranny. What has been said of the French Bourbons can be said of Bush: that his regime forgot nothing and learned nothing.

For an update, click the pic:

Gunmen attack US-funded Afghan firm

KABUL (Reuters) - Taliban guerrillas have attacked a U.S.-funded Afghan construction company, killing an Afghan guard and wounding two, the director of the company said on Sunday.

Police said that in a separate incident Taliban gunmen killed a senior government official in Ghazni province to the southwest of the capital, Kabul, on Sunday.

The attack on the construction company happened on Saturday night in Shah Wali Kot district of Kandahar province, where four Canadian soldiers had been killed by a roadside bomb earlier in the day.

The firm targeted, Tawazo Construction Company, is building a road linking the southern province of Kandahar with neighboring Uruzgan province -- a U.S. government-funded project.

"The Taliban opened fire at the company's guards, killing one and wounding two others before setting ablaze 14 vehicles and fleeing," company director Mohammad Yousuf told Reuters.

Southern Afghanistan has seen rising violence since the Taliban announced last month they had launched a spring offensive.

Ousted from power by U.S. and Afghan opposition forces in late 2001, the Taliban have declared a war on President Hamid Karzai's Western-backed government, foreign troops in the country, and anyone supporting it, including aid workers. ...

'Toons by Dante Lee; use only with permission

HOME

Sunday, April 16, 2006

Pigs fly: George Will Opposes Attack On Iran!

George Will has made the best case for not nuking Iran. On ABC "This Week" with George Stephanopoulos, Will said that Iran is a young society, connected to the internet, cell phone savvy, independent and aware of what’s going on throughout the world. The Mullahs, George says, cannot rule this emerging open society. Regime change will take place from within. Have conservatives re-discovered long atrophied brains —or have mainstream conservatives broken forever with NeoCons?

What might have been the case if this kind of progressive thinking had been practiced by “conservatives” before the long campaign of Saddam demonization? What if the so-called free world had not radicalized Iraqi theocrats with years of sanctions, lies, and bluster? What if the world’s most powerful Democracy had had the courage of its convictions? What if leaders of the United States had really believed in Democracy?

George Bush’s NeoCon base had best pay attention to George Will. Leaving Iran alone is, in fact, Bush’s only realistic option. There is no reason to believe that U.S. intelligence about Iran is in any way better than intelligence about Iraq. There is also no reason to believe anything said by Bush. And, at last, a bombing campaign –nukes or no –is unlikely to have any effect on Iran’s nuclear capability.

But, according to the Washington Post, reason, sanity and common sense have not prevailed in the Bush administion. The Post reports that despite Bush’s denials, the Pentagon is proceding apace with plans to attack Iran:
It's important to talk about war planning that's real. And it is for Iran. In early 2003, even as U.S. forces were on the brink of war with Iraq, the Army had already begun conducting an analysis for a full-scale war with Iran. The analysis, called TIRANNT, for "theater Iran near term," was coupled with a mock scenario for a Marine Corps invasion and a simulation of the Iranian missile force. U.S. and British planners conducted a Caspian Sea war game around the same time. And Bush directed the U.S. Strategic Command to draw up a global strike war plan for an attack against Iranian weapons of mass de struction. All of this will ultimately feed into a new war plan for "major combat operations" against Iran that military sources confirm now exists in draft form.

—Washington Post

There is no upside gain, only painful blowback. As Will accurately pointed out, despite Ahmadinejad’s rhetoric, the Iranian populace is overwhelmingly pro-western. Bush’s loud mouth has already undone much of that good will. A bombing campaign will most certainly turn a pro-western nation into sworn enemies. A nuclear strike, in particular, will radicalize the entire population.

Already, the U.S. Invasion of Iraq has set the stage for an Iran/Shi’ite alliance. Pledging to smash the “Axis of Evil”, Bush has, rather, created the conditions for a real “Axis of Evil”. An attack on Iran will only strengthen the rule of the Mullahs who will most certainly form an alliance with the religious majority in Iraq.

Proposals to use nukes on Iran are psychotic. But we have become accustomed to hearing about vainglorious adventures from a demagogue who lied this nation into misadventure and quagmire in Iraq. On a national scale, however, nuke talk smacks of an intoxication with imperial power. That any such thing is considered seriously by some people is evidence that nothing has been learned from the debacle in Iraq. You would call a doctor an idiot who tells you to keep on doing whatever it is that’s making you sick. Why are not “Presidents’ held to the same standard?

In the meantime, Congressman Peter DeFazio has reminded the Bush administration that any strike against Iran must be authorized by Congress, presumably in the form of a Declaration of War. Bush is not likely to get one. Therefore, any campaign against Iran will be illegal –just as was the bombing and attack on Iraq. Moreover, Iran is within the letter of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Any attack against Iran would clearly be a violation of Nuremberg Principles, insisted upon by the United States itself. Such an attack would be a prosecutable crime against the peace.
'Toons by Dante Lee; use only with permission

HOME

Friday, April 14, 2006

The Bush Regime: A Cancer that Feeds on Itself

Either despite Bush’s best efforts or because of them, the U.S. invasion of Iraq strengthened Iran and set the stage for an Iran/Shi’ite alliance. Pledging to smash the “Axis of Evil”, Bush has had the opposite effect –creating a radical theocracy in Iraq and an emerging nuclear power in Iran. Now – Ahmadinejad’s speeches to Iranians sound like Bush to Americans.

As the “Existentialist Cowboy” predicted on December 25, 2005, the violence in Iraq increased as it delineated the battle lines between Sunni and Shia. A break up of Iraq is still not out of the question as the Iran/Shia alliance portends a new axis of power in the Middle East. None of these developments had been on the horizon before Bush implemented a failed strategy: pre-emptive, aggressive war.

Would Ahmadinejad have risen to power in Iran had not Bush placed Iran among three nations comprising Bush’s “Axis of Evil”. Probably not!

Would Iran have stepped up its nuclear program if Bush had not bombed and invaded Iraq? Probably not!

Would Ahmadinejad be using Bush-like tactics inside Iran, if Bush had not had such great initial success with it in the United States? Probably not!

Would Ahmadinejad be boasting about joining the nuclear club if civil war underway in Iraq had not strengthened his alliances with the Shi’ite majority in Iraq? Maybe. Maybe not! But it sure makes it more significant.

Who has gained by Bush’s utter incompetence in carrying out an utterly failed, so-called “war on terrorism”? Clearly not the United States which now must somehow deal with the blowback of the most incomptent foreign policy in this nation's history.

Ahmadinejad, meanwhile, becomes the Iranian mirror held up to Bush.

And through it all, a terrible price has been paid for arrogance and incompetence. American losses are now in excess of 2300. Iraqi civilian losses may be greater than 140,000 according to various studies. And there are continuing concerns about inhume treatment of civilians at the hands of the American occupiers. When Bush is removed from office, you can bet that there will be a rising chorus demanding full and truly independent investigations into credible allegations of war crimes, crimes against humanity, and, of course, the war itself –a crime against the peace. And, as long as Bush remains in power, there is no end in sight.

'Toons by Dante Lee; use only with permission

HOME

Impeachment is Not Enough

by Len Hart, The Existentialist Cowboy

The voices for impeachment grow louder and more numerous by the day. More Republicans are running from Bush than Democrats; it looks like a stampede. But impeachment now will only help the GOP hang on to power. Mere impeachment fails to address the numerous crises that our nation now faces.

Impeachment is not even a good stop gap measure and would most certainly fail to stop what appears to be an imminent nuclear strike against Iran. Impeachment now would only make it easier for the Republican party to retain control of both houses of Congress. Impeachment now would make Dick Cheney President. A Cheney impeachment would make Dennis Hastert President. A Hastert impeachment leaves us with the pro tempore of the Senate. After that –Condoleeza Rice! None of these are attractive alternatives. None of them address the crisis we face.

Bush is very credibly quoted as having said: “The Constitution is just a goddamned piece of paper!” It explains why he has clearly violated his oath of office –an oath he took but did not intend to honor.

So –what’s really needed is not the mere impeachment of crooked officials. What’s needed is a profound sea change throughout American culture. What’s needed is a velvet revolution via a new national convention, a new government re-committed to the principles of our Democratic Republic. What we need to do is to literally write George W. Bush and his entire administration out of a job! In fact, nothing positive can be done to reform until the nation faces an unpleasant fact: our government is rotten to the very core –evil, inefficient, crooked, and increasingly fascist, increasingly contemptuous of the very values we grew up with and revere.

Much has been made of Bush’s ex post facto declassification of information resulting in the “outing” of Valerie Plame. And much has been made of the effects: a subversion of American national security, treason! But as far as I know no one has written about an even worse crime. Bush has required of American soldiers that they carry out war crimes in the name of the United States. It is known that murders took place at Abu Ghraib. If what has been said of Abu Ghraib by the Bush administration itself is true, then those murders were “policy”. The policy itself is criminal but the defense –‘we were only following orders' –does not exculpate.

It is the nature of evil that its commission is never confined to one person, but spreads like a cancer. The war against Iraq, the atrocities at Abu Ghraib, the domination of our government “of the people” by the Military/Industrial complex, the ill-advised and often illegal domination of congress by American corporations –all of these things are evidence of a widespread rot literally shot-through American society. And while I especially blame the GOP for rewarding a tiny, radical elite while courting theocrats who most certainly despise our Constitution, Democrats must be faulted for having failed to oppose effectively. Democrats must be faulted for having failed to understand the nature of this threat to Democracy. Democrats must be faulted for having failed to articulate an alternative vision. Someone abandoned his/her post. Someone was asleep at the switch.

The issue is a lot bigger than Democrat vs. Republican, progressive vs. conservative. Only an entirely new paradigm can save America. The America of just one or two generations ago was a different America than the Fox/Walmart America of today. When did we become a fascist nation, espousing fascist values —and why didn’t we see it coming? Howard Zinn asked recently: “What does it take to bring a turnaround in social consciousness - from being a racist to being in favor of racial equality, from being in favor of Bush's tax program to being against it, from being in favor of the war in Iraq to being against it?” That’s the question and impeachment alone won’t answer it.

There are some in this country who believe that war is good for business, but, more properly, good for "war profiteers”. But at a time when the U.S. trade deficit is increasingly an issue, war itself threatens to become America’s chief export. War during Hitler's Third Reich was, similarly, good for business –for a while. Hitler's economy, indeed, boomed –for awhile.

We would like to think that it all turned “bad for business” when the Reich collapsed. But I'm not so sure. In fact, most of the perpetrators of Hitler’s Holocaust got away with it. Despite Simon Weisenthal's best efforts to bring Nazi war criminals to justice, many of the corporate "war profiteers" were never brought to trial. The Bush family continued trading with Hitler even after America joined the war effort. That's just one example.

The corporate, economic power behind the Third Reich was largely untouched; I.G. Farben, for example, was merely broken up. A conglomerate, many of its "subsidiaries" still do business and are doing fine. One of them is Bayer Aspirin. Thyssen, likewise, still does business in America. The board room criminals who plan and profit from war are little affected it. As Dr. Gustav Gilbert, the American psychologist who interviewed and "analyzed" Nazi war criminals at Nuremberg, concluded: evil is the lack of empathy! There is no "empathy" to be found in the board rooms of corporate war profiteers. Empathy has, of late, been demonized ala conservative subverters of the language: those with "empathy" are called "bleeding hearts!"

On another front, impeachment alone will not save the United States from creeping theocracy. The American right wing will still try to force the teaching of religion in public schools, will continue to debunk real science even as they celebrate and advocate junk science like “creationism” and “intelligent design”. The American right wing will still demonize Darwin and attribute to him positions he never took. The American right wing will still strive to make of our country a radical theocracy in which the likes of Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell will become American “Mullahs”.

Mere impeachment will not restore the Bill of Rights —the very foundation of our freedom. How many times were the families of American servicemen told that their young men had made the ultimate sacrifice at Normandy and the battle fields of Europe for the ideals of American freedom. If that were so, why is the Bill of Rights now demonized by the GOP, Bush, and the right wing in general? Why are the Bill of Rights under seige by an unconstitutional domestic spying scheme for which Bush has no legal authority under the Fourth Amendment? And most recently, MSNBC warns of an emerging national secret police:

...America’s Secret Police?

An informal panel of senior Pentagon officials has been holding a series of unannounced private meetings during the past several weeks about how to proceed with a possible merger between the Counterintelligence Field Activity (CIFA), a post-9/11 Pentagon creation that has been accused of domestic spying, and the Defense Security Service (DSS), a well-established older agency responsible for inspecting the security arrangements of defense contractors. DSS also maintains millions of confidential files containing the results of background investigations on defense contractors’ employees.
Evil is insidious but also —as we were told so profoundly by Hannah Arendt —banal. [See: Eichmann in Jerusalem] Don't expect Dick Cheney and George Bush et al to reveal themselves by snorting fire, projectile puking green bile, or cackling maniacally when they nuke Iran. Would it were so easy! The reality of evil is more mundane. If fundies can explain the universe with "God did it", they will justify wars of aggression with "God has ordained it!” And even then, Bush's gang of NeoCons lied this nation into war. As Voltaire put it: "Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities."

Considering the fact that corporate crooks now rule our nation, global warming seems irreversible and a nuclear strike against Iran may be imminent, one is reminded of this bit of gallows humor:

The doctor told his patient:

"My God, man, you're going to die in five minutes!”

"Gee, Doc!!!! Is there anything you can do?"

"I could boil you an egg!?!"
'Toons by Dante Lee; use only with permission

HOME

Wednesday, April 12, 2006

Connecting the Dots to Treason

by Len Hart, The Existentialist Cowboy

Bush lied about having found WMD in Iraq for almost a year after the story had been discredited by the Pentagon itself. But this was the same year that Valerie Plame would be "outed" by George W. Bush. Is there a connection? First the Washington Post story:

Lacking Biolabs, Trailers Carried Case for War

Administration Pushed Notion of Banned Iraqi Weapons Despite Evidence to Contrary

By Joby Warrick
Washington Post Staff WriterM

Wednesday, April 12, 2006; A01

On May 29, 2003, 50 days after the fall of Baghdad, President Bush proclaimed a fresh victory for his administration in Iraq: Two small trailers captured by U.S. and Kurdish troops had turned out to be long-sought mobile "biological laboratories." He declared, "We have found the weapons of mass destruction."

The claim, repeated by top administration officials for months afterward, was hailed at the time as a vindication of the decision to go to war. But even as Bush spoke, U.S. intelligence officials possessed powerful evidence that it was not true. ...

Damien recently posted a link to the following information:

Outed CIA officer was working on Iran, intelligence sources say

Larisa Alexandrovna

Published: February 13, 2006

The unmasking of covert CIA officer Valerie Plame Wilson by White House officials in 2003 caused significant damage to U.S. national security and its ability to counter nuclear proliferation abroad, Raw Story has learned.

According to current and former intelligence officials, Plame Wilson, who worked on the clandestine side of the CIA in the Directorate of Operations as a non-official cover (NOC) officer, was part of an operation tracking distribution and acquisition of weapons of mass destruction technology to and from Iran.

Speaking under strict confidentiality, intelligence officials revealed heretofore unreported elements of Plame's work. Their accounts suggest that Plame's outing was more serious than has previously been reported and carries grave implications for U.S. national security and its ability to monitor Iran's burgeoning nuclear program ...
That Plame was "outed" raises serious questions but not merely about the competence of a regime already known to be incompetent. It's worse than that! There is no rational explanation for persisting in a WMD story known to be untrue even as Bush "leaks" information that disrupts Plame's operation. Revenge against Wilson is most certainly a factor, but Bush's motives for deliberately undermining the security of the U.S. must surely go beyond mere revenge. What are the motives for high treason? But, of course, that MSM will never ask that question until they face the emerging truth: Bush betrayed the United States.
'Toons by Dante Lee; use only with permission

Media Conglomerates, Mergers, Concentration of Ownership, Global Issues, Updated: January 02, 2009

Share

Subscribe



GoogleYahoo!AOLBloglines

Add to Google

Add to Google

Add Cowboy Videos to Google

Add to Google

Download DivX

Tuesday, April 11, 2006

Callous Frauds, High Treason, and Lies: A Snapshot of the Bush Administration

by Len Hat, The Existentialist Cowboy

George W. Bush endangered our national security in the process of covering up a fraud that he and Cheney perpetrated upon America and the world —namely, the deliberate lies told to justify his administration's aggression against Iraq.

This is true whether or not Bush “legally” released the classified information most recently in question in the Plame affair. Bush is obliged to a higher law –that of defending the nation. By exposing Plame and her numerous sources and “operations”, he broke that oath. The technicalities of the leak itself are almost irrelevant. He could be innocent of the leak but guilty is his actions subvert the defense of the nation. He is, then, clearly impeachable.

Bush has shown a careless disregard for the security of the people of this nation, thumbing his nose at the Constitution which he consider just a "...Goddamned piece of paper". Put simply, Bush proved himself willing to compromise our security in order to perpetrate yet another cover story, another fraud.

But, in fact, Bush had not de-classified the information before Plame’s name was already in the media. Bush himself has admitted that he selectively leaked classified information that had not been declassified until several days after Scooter Libby leaked it to Judith Miller. Let’s make this simple: Bush claims that he had the God-like power to make legal crimes that he has already committed.

It’s bad enough that Bushco tried repeatedly to justify the American aggression against Iraq with numerous ex post facto rationales, now Bush rewrites the law as he goes along. His entire administration –Cheney, Condo, Card, McClellan, Rumsfeld –have long sounded like an old Amos N’ Andy routine. “Sapphire, would youse belee me, if’n I’s tol’ you….?”

Now let’s talk about how Bush subverted American national security by blowing Plame’s cover, an act typically justified after the harm had already been done. ``I wanted people to see the truth and thought it made sense for people to see the truth.'' [ See: Guardian Unlimited ] That’s baloney on its face.

There are at two big holes in Bush's nonsense. Even if that had been Bush’s “motivation”, it would mean that Bush believed his side of the story ( a lie) was worth compromising national security!

Secondly, even if had not had that effect, it most certainly did not result in a favorable “spin” for Bush. Rather –the opposite. By deliberately blowing Plame's cover, Bush actually proved the lie to his own case for war against Iraq. His motivation was and remains: punishing Joe Wilson for daring to tell the truth about yet another Bush fraud: the reasons for war against Iraq. How many would have known about Joe Wilson if Bush had not decided that punishing Wilson was worth committing high treason? Only the peace movement which, had been, by that time, all but silenced by an apparent conspiracy among “Mainstream Media” kiss ups. Once again a Bush lie told after the fact doesn’t hold water.

As I've previously pointed out, this story is about the quaqmire in Iraq. The Bush case for war was not merely wrong or mistaken. It was a deliberate fraud. Bush has shown himself willing to put American lives in jeopardy in order to keep intact his fraud. One of those lives jeopardized was that of Valerie Plame. Another key point: if the war against Iraq was begun upon a pack of deliberate lies, it was and remains a war crime violating both the Nuremberg Principles and U.S. Codes; Section 2441.

What are the implications of the events that have transpired over the last week or so? Simply this: Bush has lied to the American people yet again! Bush has placed himself above the law and lied about his motivations. Bush has thought his already discredited pack of lies was worth subverting national security in order to get his fraudulent story into the gullible MSM. There are two words for this: high treason!

'Toons by Dante Lee; use only with permission


Media Conglomerates, Mergers, Concentration of Ownership, Global Issues, Updated: January 02, 2009

Share

Subscribe



GoogleYahoo!AOLBloglines

Add to Google

Add to Google

Add Cowboy Videos to Google

Add to Google

Download DivX

Friday, April 07, 2006

Mainstream Media Get Suckered Again, Coverage of the Leak Scandals Hits New Low

Does the media get it? Listening to the major networks, surfing the net, one would never know that the libby-leak story is all about Iraq and the lies Bushco told to get us there. Bushco has gotten away with reframing yet another debate. So what if Bush could make the illegal legal? So what if Bush can de-classify upon a malicious, vindictive whim? All dictators claim omnipotence but the powers of a dictator do not justify the dictatorship!

The real issues are these:

  • the lies the Bush administration told about Iraq;
  • the draconian measures Bush was willing to "authorize" in order to cover them up!
The timely "outing" of Valerie Plame is clearly one of those measures. Then why are the media following Scott McClellan's red herrings?

According to the Washington Post, Bush authorized Libby to "...disclose highly sensitive intelligence information". The question is not whether but why? The Center for American Progress states flatly that it was an attempt to discredit critics of Bush's rationale for the war against Iraq. If not that —then what? Some background. Wilson had blown holes in Bush's claim that Iraq was trying to buy yellow cake from Niger in order to build a nuke.
I have little choice but to conclude that some of the intelligence related to Iraq's nuclear weapons program was twisted to exaggerate the Iraqi threat

—Ambassador Joseph Wilson

This is consistent with the various Downing Street memos themselves compelling if not conclusive evidence that Bush and Blair conspired to wage a war of aggression upon various fraudulent pretexts. It's also consistent with a recent story in the New York Times:

The Reach of War: Leaders; Bush Was Set on Path to War, Memo by British Adviser Says

In July of 2003, Wilson wrote that he had seen no evidence of an Iraq/Niger uranium transaction. His claim was backed up by N.I.E. and the CIA itself which gave "low confidence" to Bushco's uranium claims adding in a report that "...we cannot confirm whether Iraq succeeded in acquiring uranium ore.

Bushies, desperate for a pretext to wage a war upon which they had already decided, embarked upon a campaign to "...fix the intelligence " around a pre-conceived rationale. When this Machiavellian strategy was blown by Wilson, Bushco embarked upon an insidious campaign of retaliation. Thuggery in high places!

It's but the tip of an iceberg but you wouldn't have known that watching TV today. Clearly —the Bush administration cherry-picked intelligence and, according the various Downing Street Memos, engaged in planning campaigns of character assassination for anyone daring to dispute the official cover stories, the various Bush frauds to justify a war of naked aggression against Iraq.

Look at the polls. Most people now believe that Bush deliberately misled the American people about the reasons this nation attacked, invaded, and occupied a sovereign nation. Even Bush admits that Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with 911 —though Bush passively benefited from the misconception. He may have even encouraged it. The war has now cost hundreds of billions of dollars and thousands of lives —American and Iraqi. The questions remaining today are: why can't the media get it right? When will Bush be held to account?

There is some good coverage to be had. But, generally speaking, you will not find it on network TV which seems to have bought into the Bush campaign to reframe both his role and the debate.Bush is toast. As I had already written, the idea that Bush can make legal crimes he's already committed is absurd on its face! How the media fell for this obvious bunkum, I'll never know.

Media left unanswered questions about NIE disclosure

Summary: Many in the media have simply asserted as fact that President Bush's alleged authorization of the release of key judgments of a classified National Intelligence Estimate is legal, without any discussion of the implications or consequences of such a position. Media Matters has prepared a list of questions arising from the revelation of I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby's claim that Bush did just that -- questions that the simple assertion of the legality of the president's alleged actions doesn't begin to answer.

On April 5, special counsel Patrick J. Fitzgerald filed court documents alleging that I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, former chief of staff to Vice President Dick Cheney, testified that Cheney told Libby in July 2003 that President Bush had authorized Libby to disclose the key judgments of a classified National Intelligence Estimate (NIE). According to Fitzgerald, Libby further testified that "he brought a brief abstract of the NIE's key judgments" to a July 8, 2003, meeting with New York Times reporter Judith Miller and that Libby "understood that he was to tell Miller, among other things, that a key judgment of the NIE held that Iraq was 'vigorously trying to procure' uranium." According to Fitzgerald, Libby testified that this disclosure was intended to rebut former Ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV, who had charged that the Bush administration distorted intelligence about Iraq's supposed nuclear weapons program in making the case for war.

In 2005, Libby was indicted for obstruction of justice, perjury, and false statements in connection with the Bush administration's alleged disclosure that Wilson's wife -- Valerie Plame -- was a CIA operative.

Immediately following The New York Sun's publication of an April 6 article breaking the story about Libby's testimony, many in the media have simply asserted as fact that what Bush is alleged to have done is legal, without any discussion of the implications or consequences of such a position. Media Matters for America has prepared a partial list of questions arising from the revelation of Libby's claims -- questions that the simple assertion of the legality of the president's alleged actions doesn't begin to answer.

1. Is there a process that the president must go through in order to have national security information declassified? If so, was that process followed? For example, are there any documents that the president must sign or officials that must be contacted before information can be made public? Must the president coordinate with or inform the agency that produced the information?

Presidents Reagan, Clinton, and George W. Bush all signed executive orders pertaining to the declassification of national security information. At least one legal analyst -- Fox News senior judicial analyst Andrew P. Napolitano, a former New Jersey state judge -- has argued that Bush "would be violating his own order" if he declassified parts of the NIE without following certain procedures. ...

An update from Greg Palast[the bolding is mine]:

Gangster Government -- A Leaky President Runs Afoul of "Little Rico"

By Greg Palast

It's a crime. No kidding. But the media has it all wrong. As usual, 'Scooter' Libby finally outed 'Mr. Big,' the perpetrator of the heinous disclosure of the name of secret agent Valerie Plame. It was the President of United States himself -- in conspiracy with his Vice-President. Now the pundits are arguing over whether our war-a-holic President had the legal right to leak this national security information. But, that's a fake debate meant to distract you.

OK, let's accept the White House alibi that releasing Plame's identity was no crime. But if that's true, they've committed a bigger crime: Bush and Cheney knowingly withheld vital information from a grand jury investigation, a multimillion dollar inquiry the perps themselves authorized. That's akin to calling in a false fire alarm or calling the cops for a burglary that never happened -- but far, far worse. Let's not forget that in the hunt for the perpetrator of this non-crime, reporter Judith Miller went to jail.

Think about that. While Miller sat in a prison cell, Bush and Cheney were laughing their sick heads off, knowing the grand jury testimony, the special prosecutor's subpoenas and the FBI's terrorizing newsrooms were nothing but fake props in Bush's elaborate charade, Cheney's Big Con.

On February 10, 2004, our not-so-dumb-as-he-sounds President stated, "Listen, I know of nobody -- I don't know of anybody in my administration who leaked classified information. If somebody did leak classified information, I'd like to know it, and we'll take the appropriate action. And this investigation is a good thing. ...And if people have got solid information, please come forward with it."

Notice Bush's cleverly crafted words. He says he can't name anyone who leaked this "classified" info -- knowing full well he'd de-classified it. Far from letting Bush off the hook, it worsens the crime. For years, I worked as a government investigator and, let me tell you, Bush and Cheney withholding material information from the grand jury is a felony. Several felonies, actually: abuse of legal process, fraud, racketeering and, that old standby, obstruction of justice.

If you or I had manipulated the legal system this way, we'd be breaking rocks on a chain gang. We wouldn't even get a trial -- most judges would consider this a "fraud upon the court" and send us to the slammer in minutes using the bench's power to administer instant punishment for contempt of the judicial system.

Why'd they do it? The White House junta did the deed for the most evil of motives: to hoodwink the public during the 2004 election campaign, to pretend that evil anti-Bush elements were undermining the Republic, when it was the Bush element itself at the center of the conspiracy. (Notably, elections trickery also motivated Richard Nixon's "plumbers" to break into the Watergate, then the Democratic Party campaign headquarters.)

Let me draft the indictment for you as I would have were I still a government gumshoe:

"Perpetrator Lewis Libby (alias, 'Scooter') contacted Miller; while John Doe 1 contacted perpetrators' shill at the Washington Post, Bob Woodward, in furtherance of a scheme directed by George Bush (alias 'The POTUS') and Dick Cheney (alias, 'The Veep') to release intelligence information fraudulently proffered as 'classified,' and thereinafter, knowingly withheld material evidence from a grand jury empanelled to investigate said disclosure. Furthermore, perpetrator 'The POTUS' made material statements designed to deceive investigators and knowingly misrepresent his state of knowledge of the facts."

Statements aimed at misleading grand jury investigators are hard-time offenses. It doesn't matter that Bush's too-clever little quip was made to the press and not under oath. I've cited press releases and comments in the New York Times in court as evidence of fraud. By not swearing to his disingenuous statement, Bush gets off the perjury hook, but he committed a crime nonetheless, "deliberate concealment."

Here's how the law works (and hopefully, it will). The Bush gang's use of the telephone in this con game constituted wire fraud. Furthermore, while presidents may leak ("declassify") intelligence information, they may not obstruct justice; that is, send a grand jury on a wild goose chase. Under the 'RICO' statute (named after the Edward G. Robinson movie mobster, 'Little Rico'), the combination of these crimes makes the Bush executive branch a "racketeering enterprise."

So, book'm, Dan-o. Time to read The POTUS and The Veep their rights.

After setting their bail (following the impeachments and removals, of course), a judge will have a more intriguing matter to address. The RICO law requires the Feds to seize all "ill-gotten gains" of a racketeering enterprise, even before trial. Usually we're talking fast cars and diamond bling. But in this case, the conspirators' purloined booty includes a stolen election and a fraudulently obtained authorization for war. I see no reason why a judge could not impound the 82d Airborne as "fruits of the fraud " -- lock, stock and gun barrels -- and bring the boys home.

And if justice is to be done we will will also have to run yellow tape across the gates at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue -- "CRIME SCENE - DO NOT ENTER" -- and return the White House to its rightful owners, the American people, the victims of this gangster government.
BRAVO GREG!!!

A Pattern of Partisan Intelligence Leaks

Knights Ridder reporters say that Bush/Cheney's authorization to Scooter Libby to declassify and divulge classified information about Iraq "fits a pattern of selective leaks of secret intelligence to further the administration's political agenda."

Scott McClellan today tried to justify the Adminstration's actions:
Without specifically acknowledging Bush's actions in the Libby case, White House spokesman Scott McClellan told reporters: "There were irresponsible and unfounded accusations being made against the administration suggesting that we had manipulated or misused that intelligence. We felt it was very much in the public interest that what information could be declassified be reclassified."

McClellan didn't address why administration officials often declassified information that supported their allegations about Iraq but not intelligence that undercut their claims.
Here's a question I'm not seeing answered. If Libby was authorized to disclose newly declassified information to Judith Miller, and if it was all on the up and up, why did Libby, Cheney and Bush let her do 85 days in jail for refusing to say she got the information from Libby?

And, as Digby says, if they wanted to declassify and disclose information favorable to their case for war in Iraq, why didn't they call a press conference? Why did they give it to selected reporters? That's not disclosure to the public, that's a selective leak for partisan purposes.

There's two issues with Fitzgerald's filing. One is the Administration's failure to come clean about dissenting opinions on whether Saddam had WMD's. As Murray Waas reported, there's a one page piece of paper floating around that was given to the President in which doubts were expressed. Greg Sargent explains.

Let's state this as clearly as we can: Wass says there is a piece of paper out there which constitutes hard evidence that Bush withheld critical info from the American public as he made the most critical decision a president can make -- the decision whether to go to war. Jaded DC hands will say, "Old news -- everyone knew there was dissent within the bureaucracy." Fine. But Wass's story says more than that -- he says there's proof of the extent to which Bush knew of that dissent, that he deliberately concealed it from the public, and that Rove thought this fact could "severely damage" Bush's reelection prospects if it surfaced.

The other is whether Bush ordered the declassification of a document specifically for the purpose of discrediting Joseph Wilson (and by extension, his wife, Valerie Plame) to bolster his case for war.

If he declassified information to trash Wilson, that's a big problem.
While the MSM seems largely to have missed the boat, the web and blogoshere have yielded some interesting comments.

One of the most lucid descriptions of how Bush/Cheney abused the power of the Oval Office to make legal what is by rights and common sense a vindicative, malicious crime:
Bush would never, never take a fall for anyone, probably not even his own mother. Or I should say for sure not his own mother, because he obviously has a lot of unresolved issues with her.

Bush stepped in because he was forced to by Libby's court filings. He knew this day would come but he also knew he was untouchable.

When Libby leaked the name of a CIA operative he released classified information, which would be a crime, if he acted on his own authority, as most of us believed. But now we find out that he was not acting on his own authority, he was acting under instructions from Cheney and Bush and thus, as it turns out, he did nothing illegal.

That is, until he lied, presumably to save the butts of Cheney and Bush. If Libby would have simply went before the grand jury and told the truth, the saga would have ended then and there and the public would have known the truth before the last Presidential election.

—Evelyn Pringle, Bush and Cheney Get Over On Fitzgerald, OpEdNews

Here's a concise compilation of comments from the SoCal Law Blog (Southern Calfornia Law Blogs)
The Washington Post, Apr. 7, 2006, “Bush Authorized Secrets’ Release, Libby Testified.”) Other links of note:

  1. The DOJ has posted the court filing where the prosecutor describes Libby’s testimony here. At page 23, the prosecutor states: “As to the meeting on July8, defendant testified that he was specificallyauthorized in advance of the meeting to disclose the key judgments of the classified NIE to Miller on that occasion because it was thought that the NIE was “pretty definitive” against what Ambassador Wilson had said and that the Vice President thought that it was “very important” for the key judgments of the NIE to come out. Defendant further testified that he at first advised the Vice President that he could not have this conversation with reporter Miller because of the classified nature of the NIE. Defendant testified that the Vice President later advised him that the President had authorized defendant to disclose the relevant portions of the NIE. Defendant testified that he also spoke to David Addington, then Counsel to the Vice President, whom defendant considered to be an expert in national security law, and Mr. Addington opined that Presidential authorization to publicly disclose a document amounted to a declassification of the document.”

  2. Anti-Strib points out that the hysteria over this issue is “a reflection on the way anti-Bush animus has fed into the adversarial culture of post-Watergate journalism in America. “

  3. Think Progress thinks he caught Scott McCellan in a slip-up on the timing of the declassification of the NIE.

  4. Howard Kurtz concludes: “On that score, Bush is probably safe from having to fire himself, despite Scooter Libby’s accusation yesterday that the president, through Dick Cheney, had authorized him to feed classified CIA data to Judy Miller. The reason: It’s legal for the president to declassify something that otherwise would remain super-secret. Politically, it’s a mess.”

  5. The Existentialist Cowboy concludes: “Wake up, folks! It doesn’t get any more evil than that. The act is dastardly, impeachable, prosecutable, morally reprehensible, despicable!”

  6. Talk Left thinks the disclosure is part of a bigger pattern.

'Toons by Dante Lee; use only with permission

HOME