Bad news for the Bush and Blair governments has been coming out of Great Britain, Ireland and Germany recently and it appears to be the type of thing that could become a trend in other countries as well. The bad news is that people charged with crimes for having taken action against military targets as a protest against the Iraq war have successfully used the defense that the war is illegal and an act of aggression by the United States and the UK.
The courts are starting to accept that the war against Iraq is a crime
The Guardian newspaper carried this headline on Tuesday October 17, 2006 for a story reported by George Monbiot. (The link is to a Raw Story article on the Guardian piece) The story cites several incidents where protesters have been arrested for sabotage of military equipment to prevent its use in the Iraq war. In one case “The defendants were allowed to show that they were seeking to prevent specific war crimes from being committed - principally, the release by the B52s of cluster bombs and munitions tipped with depleted uranium. They cited section 5 of the 1971 Criminal Damage Act, which provides lawful excuse for damaging property if that action prevents property belonging to other people from being damaged, and section 3 of the 1967 Criminal Law Act, which states that "a person may use such force as is reasonable in the prevention of a crime". In summing up, the judge told the jurors that using weapons "with an adverse effect on civilian populations which is disproportionate to the need to achieve the military objective" is a war crime. Another case involved a German Army Major who refused to obey an order he felt would implicate him in the invasion of Iraq. In his case, “The judges determined that the UN charter permits a state to go to war in only two circumstances: in self-defence, and when it has been authorised to do so by the UN security council. The states attacking Iraq, they ruled, had no such licence. Resolution 1441, which was used by the British and US governments to justify the invasion, contained no authorisation. The war could be considered an act of aggression.”
These findings may become the legal precedents that sound the death knell for Bush and his war council. One, a judicial finding that the invasion of Iraq by the United States and Great Britain was not justified either as an act of self defense or under UN Resolution 1441 which was determined not to contain authorization to do so. The other, a finding of “disproportionate force to achieve a military objective” was further amplified by the recent findings of researchers at John Hopkins University that 655,000 Iraqis have died due to the current war.
This would mean that the US and UK have committed an act of aggression in the eyes of the international community. Yet, every American politician that appears with some talking head on the cable/network news shows continue to assert that they were correct to support the invasion, some saying they would do the same today even knowing at the time what we have learned since.
Basically, we sent inspectors into Iraq to verify that no weapons existed. Then, having proven their defenselessness, invaded their country with such devastating force that the operation was dubbed “shock and awe”. What is different about this administration’s actions from a person shooting another person they know to be unarmed and claiming to be justified because the person they shot had a weapon? Many Americans are of the opinion that our country and our leaders are guilty of a crime but, fear the reprisal of the White House that this administration is famous for.
If the Democrats regain control of either branch of Congress they MUST use their subpoena power to conduct honest, open investigations and, most importantly, they must be willing to pursue the evidence without reservation and to hold responsible anyone the investigations determine to be in violation of the law, including the President himself.
Thursday, October 19, 2006
Wednesday, October 11, 2006
Dirty Dozen
Thanks to the U.S. Senate the President now has the ability to classify anyone as an enemy combatant then detain them without charges for an indefinite period of time, block any judicial review of this process, disallow any challenges by prisoners to their incarceration while subjecting them to torture to obtain coerced evidence which can then be used against them along with other secret evidence to which these prisoners nor their attorneys would ever have access. Sounds as “Fair and Balanced” as Fox News.
Section 9, Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution.
"The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended,
unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety
may require it."
What is at all difficult to understand about this clause in the U.S. Constitution? There is neither a rebellion nor an invasion threatening the public safety. America has engaged in war before without the need to suspend the writ of Habeas Corpus with two infamous exceptions. On both occasions the government was subsequently found to have violated the constitutional rights of the individuals involved.
President Bush has been attempting to secure unrestricted power for the executive since taking office, but this is a scarier proposition than most. According the Michael Ratner, President for the Center for Constitutional Rights, in an article posted at the Nation:
Twice in the past five years the Supreme Court has insisted that habeas
corpus applies to these prisoners and ruled that the Bush Administration
must apply the law. Yet last week Congress buckled in the face of
election-year rhetoric about "terrorism" from the White House and passed
new legislation denying our clients the right to challenge their detentions,
or even to see the evidence against them. While I'm convinced that this
law will not stand in court, we are still facing at least a year of
challenges before it is declared unconstitutional
[snip]…
The Administration has been attempting to use military commissions
for five years and has not yet been able to set up one that complies
with the laws of war or the Constitution. Bush's most recent effort
was struck down by the Supreme Court in June. This legislation is no
better: Coerced evidence is still permitted; a detainee does not get to
see all the evidence against him, and a wide variety of hearsay
evidence can be used.
The President has wanted such sweeping authority since 9/11. He has
been getting it piece by piece. First, with the Authorization to Use Military
Force, he obtained from Congress the right to go after those involved
with 9/11. Then he issued an "executive order" in November 2001 granting
him the authority to detain indefinitely without charges any non-citizen
allegedly involved in terrorism--not just those supposedly connected to 9/11.
Subsequently, he claimed the power as commander in chief to detain anyone,
citizen or not, allegedly involved in terrorism or who might be giving support
to those who attack the United States. The Administration argued that those
so detained could be held forever, never charged and, except for US citizens,
denied habeas corpus. Now Congress has placed its imprimatur on these
fantasies of executive omnipotence--what can only be called the legal
structure of a police state.
The remainder of the legislation passed the Senate by a much greater
margin, 65 to 34, with twelve Democrats backing the entire bill. I was
shocked: It did not need to be this way. The Democrats could have
filibustered the legislation; with only a few days left before recess,
they could have succeeded. Despite their strong vocal arguments against
this legislation, in the end the Democrats caved. It was not a moment to
be proud of.
This is the stuff of Soviet spy novels and the communist oppressions that Reagan and the Republicans claim to have eliminated along with ending the cold war. Even worse is that the Senate has given these powers to a man who is without doubt, the most sadistic person to ever lead this nation. As Governor of Texas, George Bush oversaw the executions of 155 individuals, more than any other elected official in recorded American history! He executed the innocent, the mentally disabled, juveniles, and he violated international law by denying foreign citizens the right to contact their government before they were sentenced to death. As President he re-started federal executions, the first since the 1960's and 2 of 3 were Gulf war veterans.
An example of Bush's compassionate conservatism can be found in an interview with Talk magazine and their one time reporter, Tucker Carlson:
In the week before [Karla Faye Tucker's] execution, Bush says, Bianca
Jagger and a number of other protesters came to Austin to demand
clemency for Tucker. "Did you meet with any of them?" I ask.
Bush whips around and stares at me. "No, I didn't meet with any of them,"
he snaps, as though I've just asked the dumbest, most offensive question
ever posed. "I didn't meet with Larry King either when he came down for
it. I watched his interview with [Tucker], though. He asked her real
difficult questions, like 'What would you say to Governor Bush?' "
"What was her answer?" I wonder.
"Please," Bush whimpers, his lips pursed in mock desperation, "don't kill me."
To the 155 souls executed at his order, we can now add almost 3000 American service men and women and over 20,000 wounded or injured, plus as many as 655,000 Iraqi citizens. In fact, George Bush has managed to kill more Americans and innocent Iraqi citizens than the total number of people killed by Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein combined.
What reason can be offered by the U.S. Senators who voted for the Military Commission Act which effectively abolished the writ of habeas corpus? What mitigating factors will they offer for having destroyed the very cornerstone of our democracy and the rule of law? Whose agenda were they enabling by emasculating the legal principle that has prevented the use of unwarranted arrests to eliminate opponents and silence critics?
There are no acceptable reasons for any Senator to have voted for this bill while claiming to support democracy. Of course, Republicans no longer support either a republic or a democracy as they have all cast their lot with Bush’s Neoconservative administration which has been instituting Fascism in place of our representative form of government since 2001.
The Democratic Senators (listed below) who voted for this bill are reprehensible and not deserving of our future support. Although it is imperative for Democrats to take back the House and Senate if the country is to survive as a democracy, these Senators must be held accountable for their disloyalty to the Nation’s principles and their Party’s tenets. Their re-elections should be challenged from within the Party by honorable candidates who understand the damage these Senators have committed to the U.S. Constitution. They are:
Carper (Del.)
Johnson (S.D.)
Landrieu (La.)
Lautenberg (N.J.)
Lieberman (Conn.)
Menendez (N.J)
Nelson (Fla.)
Nelson (Neb.)
Pryor (Ark.)
Rockefeller (W. Va.)
Salazar (Co.)
Stabenow (Mich.)
Section 9, Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution.
"The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended,
unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety
may require it."
What is at all difficult to understand about this clause in the U.S. Constitution? There is neither a rebellion nor an invasion threatening the public safety. America has engaged in war before without the need to suspend the writ of Habeas Corpus with two infamous exceptions. On both occasions the government was subsequently found to have violated the constitutional rights of the individuals involved.
President Bush has been attempting to secure unrestricted power for the executive since taking office, but this is a scarier proposition than most. According the Michael Ratner, President for the Center for Constitutional Rights, in an article posted at the Nation:
Twice in the past five years the Supreme Court has insisted that habeas
corpus applies to these prisoners and ruled that the Bush Administration
must apply the law. Yet last week Congress buckled in the face of
election-year rhetoric about "terrorism" from the White House and passed
new legislation denying our clients the right to challenge their detentions,
or even to see the evidence against them. While I'm convinced that this
law will not stand in court, we are still facing at least a year of
challenges before it is declared unconstitutional
[snip]…
The Administration has been attempting to use military commissions
for five years and has not yet been able to set up one that complies
with the laws of war or the Constitution. Bush's most recent effort
was struck down by the Supreme Court in June. This legislation is no
better: Coerced evidence is still permitted; a detainee does not get to
see all the evidence against him, and a wide variety of hearsay
evidence can be used.
The President has wanted such sweeping authority since 9/11. He has
been getting it piece by piece. First, with the Authorization to Use Military
Force, he obtained from Congress the right to go after those involved
with 9/11. Then he issued an "executive order" in November 2001 granting
him the authority to detain indefinitely without charges any non-citizen
allegedly involved in terrorism--not just those supposedly connected to 9/11.
Subsequently, he claimed the power as commander in chief to detain anyone,
citizen or not, allegedly involved in terrorism or who might be giving support
to those who attack the United States. The Administration argued that those
so detained could be held forever, never charged and, except for US citizens,
denied habeas corpus. Now Congress has placed its imprimatur on these
fantasies of executive omnipotence--what can only be called the legal
structure of a police state.
The remainder of the legislation passed the Senate by a much greater
margin, 65 to 34, with twelve Democrats backing the entire bill. I was
shocked: It did not need to be this way. The Democrats could have
filibustered the legislation; with only a few days left before recess,
they could have succeeded. Despite their strong vocal arguments against
this legislation, in the end the Democrats caved. It was not a moment to
be proud of.
This is the stuff of Soviet spy novels and the communist oppressions that Reagan and the Republicans claim to have eliminated along with ending the cold war. Even worse is that the Senate has given these powers to a man who is without doubt, the most sadistic person to ever lead this nation. As Governor of Texas, George Bush oversaw the executions of 155 individuals, more than any other elected official in recorded American history! He executed the innocent, the mentally disabled, juveniles, and he violated international law by denying foreign citizens the right to contact their government before they were sentenced to death. As President he re-started federal executions, the first since the 1960's and 2 of 3 were Gulf war veterans.
An example of Bush's compassionate conservatism can be found in an interview with Talk magazine and their one time reporter, Tucker Carlson:
In the week before [Karla Faye Tucker's] execution, Bush says, Bianca
Jagger and a number of other protesters came to Austin to demand
clemency for Tucker. "Did you meet with any of them?" I ask.
Bush whips around and stares at me. "No, I didn't meet with any of them,"
he snaps, as though I've just asked the dumbest, most offensive question
ever posed. "I didn't meet with Larry King either when he came down for
it. I watched his interview with [Tucker], though. He asked her real
difficult questions, like 'What would you say to Governor Bush?' "
"What was her answer?" I wonder.
"Please," Bush whimpers, his lips pursed in mock desperation, "don't kill me."
To the 155 souls executed at his order, we can now add almost 3000 American service men and women and over 20,000 wounded or injured, plus as many as 655,000 Iraqi citizens. In fact, George Bush has managed to kill more Americans and innocent Iraqi citizens than the total number of people killed by Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein combined.
What reason can be offered by the U.S. Senators who voted for the Military Commission Act which effectively abolished the writ of habeas corpus? What mitigating factors will they offer for having destroyed the very cornerstone of our democracy and the rule of law? Whose agenda were they enabling by emasculating the legal principle that has prevented the use of unwarranted arrests to eliminate opponents and silence critics?
There are no acceptable reasons for any Senator to have voted for this bill while claiming to support democracy. Of course, Republicans no longer support either a republic or a democracy as they have all cast their lot with Bush’s Neoconservative administration which has been instituting Fascism in place of our representative form of government since 2001.
The Democratic Senators (listed below) who voted for this bill are reprehensible and not deserving of our future support. Although it is imperative for Democrats to take back the House and Senate if the country is to survive as a democracy, these Senators must be held accountable for their disloyalty to the Nation’s principles and their Party’s tenets. Their re-elections should be challenged from within the Party by honorable candidates who understand the damage these Senators have committed to the U.S. Constitution. They are:
Carper (Del.)
Johnson (S.D.)
Landrieu (La.)
Lautenberg (N.J.)
Lieberman (Conn.)
Menendez (N.J)
Nelson (Fla.)
Nelson (Neb.)
Pryor (Ark.)
Rockefeller (W. Va.)
Salazar (Co.)
Stabenow (Mich.)
Tuesday, September 05, 2006
The Path to Shinola
Anything But Credible
The ABC movie event "The Path to 9/11" is scheduled to air on September 10 & 11 and is purported to be based on the 9/11 commission report. It is, in fact, a revision of history and events written by an extreme Conservative nut case with an ax to grind for Liberals.
This story has been all over the blogsphere, but for a really good take on things go read digby at Hullabaloo.
Wednesday, August 30, 2006
Olberman Speaks!
Seldom have we been treated to a more satisfying performance than that of Keith Olberman last evening. In his closing segment, Keith addressed Rumsfeld's speech to the American Legion in which the Secretary "impugn(ed) the morality or intelligence -- indeed, the loyalty -- of the majority of Americans". Rumsfeld went on to assert that our nation faces a new type of Fascism and to invoke the memory of the appeasement of the Nazis.
The irony of his statement is stark and glaring. This new Fascism he speaks of is a product of his own administration. As it has been understood since its debut in Italy prior to World War II, Fascism is the merging of Government and Corporations. More than any previous administration, Bush and company exemplify this model of government. Yet, Bush, Cheney, Rummy and Condi are currently in the midst of a PR blitz to equate Fascism with the war on terror through the constant repetition of the phrase “Islamo-fascist”.
This effort to equate Islam with Fascism is an exercise in deceptive branding that this administration has used repeatedly in the past. It is analogous to the “Clear Skies” program which increased the level of air pollution or the “Healthy Forests Initiative” which should be called “Leave no tree behind”.
Importantly, by labeling Middle Eastern radicals as Islamo-Fascists they are attempting to redefine the term to be less relevant to the form of government they have instituted. Fascism was coined by the Italian dictator, Mussolini in the 1930’s. In fact, he said it could be more accurately referred to as Corporatism. Under the Bush White House we have seen drastic increases in the number of corporate lobbyists, the amount of legislation written by corporations for corporate benefit, federal judges with a history of corporate friendly decisions and in the use of the revolving door policy between legislators and lobbyists.
It is undeniable that the Bush administration has been complicit in the corporate infiltration of government and the introduction of fascism into their governance of the country. It is also undeniable that these same corporations are notorious for their appeasement of the Nazis before, during and after World War II. Bush’s own grandfather, as managing director for Brown Brothers Harriman, was cited under the “Trading with the Enemy” act in 1942. Standard Oil (now Exxon-Mobile) , General Motors, Ford, ITT, J.P. Morgan, Guaranty Trust of New York, Bank of the City of New York, Chase National Bank and American Express were all engaged in support for the Nazis throughout the war.
The corporations most responsible not just for appeasement, but for materially and financially supporting the rise of Fascism and Nazism in Europe, are the corporations with the greatest influence in the Bush White House today. Much of the wealth of the Bush family came from the profiteering they engaged in with the enemy while our troops were engaged in battle with the same enemy.
So, Secretary Rumsfeld is correct when he says we are facing a new type of Fascism, but he lies when he attributes it to Islamic radicals. The Fascists we should most fear are the ones occupying the White House.
The irony of his statement is stark and glaring. This new Fascism he speaks of is a product of his own administration. As it has been understood since its debut in Italy prior to World War II, Fascism is the merging of Government and Corporations. More than any previous administration, Bush and company exemplify this model of government. Yet, Bush, Cheney, Rummy and Condi are currently in the midst of a PR blitz to equate Fascism with the war on terror through the constant repetition of the phrase “Islamo-fascist”.
This effort to equate Islam with Fascism is an exercise in deceptive branding that this administration has used repeatedly in the past. It is analogous to the “Clear Skies” program which increased the level of air pollution or the “Healthy Forests Initiative” which should be called “Leave no tree behind”.
Importantly, by labeling Middle Eastern radicals as Islamo-Fascists they are attempting to redefine the term to be less relevant to the form of government they have instituted. Fascism was coined by the Italian dictator, Mussolini in the 1930’s. In fact, he said it could be more accurately referred to as Corporatism. Under the Bush White House we have seen drastic increases in the number of corporate lobbyists, the amount of legislation written by corporations for corporate benefit, federal judges with a history of corporate friendly decisions and in the use of the revolving door policy between legislators and lobbyists.
It is undeniable that the Bush administration has been complicit in the corporate infiltration of government and the introduction of fascism into their governance of the country. It is also undeniable that these same corporations are notorious for their appeasement of the Nazis before, during and after World War II. Bush’s own grandfather, as managing director for Brown Brothers Harriman, was cited under the “Trading with the Enemy” act in 1942. Standard Oil (now Exxon-Mobile) , General Motors, Ford, ITT, J.P. Morgan, Guaranty Trust of New York, Bank of the City of New York, Chase National Bank and American Express were all engaged in support for the Nazis throughout the war.
The corporations most responsible not just for appeasement, but for materially and financially supporting the rise of Fascism and Nazism in Europe, are the corporations with the greatest influence in the Bush White House today. Much of the wealth of the Bush family came from the profiteering they engaged in with the enemy while our troops were engaged in battle with the same enemy.
So, Secretary Rumsfeld is correct when he says we are facing a new type of Fascism, but he lies when he attributes it to Islamic radicals. The Fascists we should most fear are the ones occupying the White House.
Tuesday, August 08, 2006
Complicity
After more than 5 years of the most disastrous leadership this country has ever had to endure at the hands of the most incompetent politician democracy has ever seen, the political landscape is finally ripe for change. The Democratic Party is in an advantageous position as the 2006 mid-term elections approach, yet the voices of dissent can be heard among the rank and file.
Within the party the Democrats are not agreed upon how they should proceed and opposing factions are beginning to take shape. There are those who want desperately to retake at least one, if not both houses of Congress and believe that to do so there must be no talk of vengeance against the administration. Others want equally to regain power in Congress but feel their best hope of doing so is by exposing the lies and incompetence of the Bush White House.
In my humble opinion, if it was so almighty important to investigate then impeach Clinton for what turned out to be a minor infraction, how do we fail to investigate George W. Bush for what must be seen as crimes against humanity. If you strongly disagree with this view, you may not wish to read on however, if the concept of equal justice is germane and vital in your view, to the continued health of democracy, read on.
The Starr investigation was at the insistence of the Republicans in Congress demanding answers about what they were calling the “Whitewater Scandal” before any evidence of a scandal had been discovered. The “lap dog” complicity of the press was demonstrated by the pushing of the scandal angle on the Whitewater story day after day while developing worthless leads that all wound up at the same dead end. We now know that most, if not all of the accusations and charges about the Clintons were the products of the “Arkansas Project”, an extreme radical right wing group of Neoconservatives financed by Paul Mellon Scaife. The cost to the American taxpayer was between $60 million to $80 million and lasted over six years.
Now, the same Republicans who pushed for the unnecessary, costly, wasteful and fruitless investigation of Clinton are doing everything they possibly can to prevent any investigation of the Bush administration and disgracefully, many Democrats are going along with them!
This is not a difficult decision if any consideration is given to the historical fallacy of "forgiving and forgetting" where Neoconservative operatives are involved. This is precisely the mistake made by Bill Clinton and being repeated by Hilary Clinton. A mistake that increases in severity by an order of magnitude with each occurrence.
When Clinton was elected ending the Reagan/Bush era, a decision was made not to pursue the numerous scandals and outright crimes committed by these two conservative icons in the name of the American people. Clinton felt that his best chance to obtain bipartisan support for his agenda was to allow the acts of his predecessors to go not just unpunished, but unmentioned. For this gesture Clinton was rewarded with eight years of relentless allegations and accusations of crimes and ethical misconduct that were all dreamed up by highly paid propagandists in a program known as the “Arkansas Project”.
The same divisive forces that plagued Clinton and turned otherwise thoughtful caring people into loathing scornful psychotics, are gearing up to smear and discredit any and all honorable Democrats who dare to run against them. The Rovian loyalists who so readily respond to the raw meat offered them via Limbaugh, Hannity and O’Reilly hate media are being prepared to plunder anew the Democratic lambs brought for slaughter.
Do not make the mistake of taking Republican opposition lightly because they have suffered from the Bush Presidency and numerous high profile criminal indictments within their ranks. Too many Democrats are speaking of the 2006 mid-term elections only in terms of how many seats they can win and fail to realize the potential ferocity of this caged animal. Karl Rove and his minions are in power positions because they campaigned with a “take no prisoners” mentality from the onset and are showing no indications of changing. They have employed dirty, unethical and illegal tactics to gain and keep power and they will continue to do so and worse.
Some Democrats are now saying that their party should look forward and not worry about making Republicans pay for the crimes committed during the Bush administration. That strategy didn’t work for Carter or Clinton and America has become less of a democratic nation thanks to their spinelessness.
It is probably true that Rove will attack the Democrats not by flaunting how well his party led the country but, by scaring people about the potential mayhem of having Democrats in charge. What better response to this charge than stating Republicans are afraid that when Democrats regain power they will seek justice by investigating alleged crimes of this administration and THE POSSIBLE AIDING AND ABETTING OF CRIMINAL ACTIVITY BY MEMBERS OF CONGRES such as Senator Roberts of Kansas who has stonewalled any investigation of the intelligence fiasco leading up to the Iraq war.
Within the party the Democrats are not agreed upon how they should proceed and opposing factions are beginning to take shape. There are those who want desperately to retake at least one, if not both houses of Congress and believe that to do so there must be no talk of vengeance against the administration. Others want equally to regain power in Congress but feel their best hope of doing so is by exposing the lies and incompetence of the Bush White House.
In my humble opinion, if it was so almighty important to investigate then impeach Clinton for what turned out to be a minor infraction, how do we fail to investigate George W. Bush for what must be seen as crimes against humanity. If you strongly disagree with this view, you may not wish to read on however, if the concept of equal justice is germane and vital in your view, to the continued health of democracy, read on.
The Starr investigation was at the insistence of the Republicans in Congress demanding answers about what they were calling the “Whitewater Scandal” before any evidence of a scandal had been discovered. The “lap dog” complicity of the press was demonstrated by the pushing of the scandal angle on the Whitewater story day after day while developing worthless leads that all wound up at the same dead end. We now know that most, if not all of the accusations and charges about the Clintons were the products of the “Arkansas Project”, an extreme radical right wing group of Neoconservatives financed by Paul Mellon Scaife. The cost to the American taxpayer was between $60 million to $80 million and lasted over six years.
Now, the same Republicans who pushed for the unnecessary, costly, wasteful and fruitless investigation of Clinton are doing everything they possibly can to prevent any investigation of the Bush administration and disgracefully, many Democrats are going along with them!
This is not a difficult decision if any consideration is given to the historical fallacy of "forgiving and forgetting" where Neoconservative operatives are involved. This is precisely the mistake made by Bill Clinton and being repeated by Hilary Clinton. A mistake that increases in severity by an order of magnitude with each occurrence.
When Clinton was elected ending the Reagan/Bush era, a decision was made not to pursue the numerous scandals and outright crimes committed by these two conservative icons in the name of the American people. Clinton felt that his best chance to obtain bipartisan support for his agenda was to allow the acts of his predecessors to go not just unpunished, but unmentioned. For this gesture Clinton was rewarded with eight years of relentless allegations and accusations of crimes and ethical misconduct that were all dreamed up by highly paid propagandists in a program known as the “Arkansas Project”.
The same divisive forces that plagued Clinton and turned otherwise thoughtful caring people into loathing scornful psychotics, are gearing up to smear and discredit any and all honorable Democrats who dare to run against them. The Rovian loyalists who so readily respond to the raw meat offered them via Limbaugh, Hannity and O’Reilly hate media are being prepared to plunder anew the Democratic lambs brought for slaughter.
Do not make the mistake of taking Republican opposition lightly because they have suffered from the Bush Presidency and numerous high profile criminal indictments within their ranks. Too many Democrats are speaking of the 2006 mid-term elections only in terms of how many seats they can win and fail to realize the potential ferocity of this caged animal. Karl Rove and his minions are in power positions because they campaigned with a “take no prisoners” mentality from the onset and are showing no indications of changing. They have employed dirty, unethical and illegal tactics to gain and keep power and they will continue to do so and worse.
Some Democrats are now saying that their party should look forward and not worry about making Republicans pay for the crimes committed during the Bush administration. That strategy didn’t work for Carter or Clinton and America has become less of a democratic nation thanks to their spinelessness.
It is probably true that Rove will attack the Democrats not by flaunting how well his party led the country but, by scaring people about the potential mayhem of having Democrats in charge. What better response to this charge than stating Republicans are afraid that when Democrats regain power they will seek justice by investigating alleged crimes of this administration and THE POSSIBLE AIDING AND ABETTING OF CRIMINAL ACTIVITY BY MEMBERS OF CONGRES such as Senator Roberts of Kansas who has stonewalled any investigation of the intelligence fiasco leading up to the Iraq war.
Wednesday, July 26, 2006
H.R. 5878
U.S. Representative Linda Woolsey, (D CA) is introducing legislation that would repeal the Iraq war powers given to Bush in 2002. This is an important piece of legislation that would put the responibility for declaring war back in Congress where it constitutionally belongs. It may also assist in exposing many of the administration's lies that led to the US invasion of Iraq.
Congress acted irresponsibly when they voted to give the president the power to declare war and avoided their constitutionally mandated duty as the only governmental body with that power. This legislation would return that power to Congress and remove it from the president who has proven to be too incompetent to be trusted with it.
The President has put our troops in a position they should not have gotten into in the first place. Our troops were not prepared to occupy Iraq. They weren't given the proper equipment, nor were they properly trained. And most importantly, the US Congress never authorized this President to undertake an occupation.
In Representative Wooley's own words. "This occupation of Iraq must end, now, and President Bush must bring our troops home. It is past time for Congress to demand that the Bush Administration come clean on Iraq, and put the safety of our troops, and the security of our nation first".
Please contact your Representatives to encourage their support for Rep. Woolsey's legislation.
Congress acted irresponsibly when they voted to give the president the power to declare war and avoided their constitutionally mandated duty as the only governmental body with that power. This legislation would return that power to Congress and remove it from the president who has proven to be too incompetent to be trusted with it.
The President has put our troops in a position they should not have gotten into in the first place. Our troops were not prepared to occupy Iraq. They weren't given the proper equipment, nor were they properly trained. And most importantly, the US Congress never authorized this President to undertake an occupation.
In Representative Wooley's own words. "This occupation of Iraq must end, now, and President Bush must bring our troops home. It is past time for Congress to demand that the Bush Administration come clean on Iraq, and put the safety of our troops, and the security of our nation first".
Please contact your Representatives to encourage their support for Rep. Woolsey's legislation.
Tuesday, July 11, 2006
Lieberman v. Lamont
Many websites have been focused on the Senate race in the state of Connecticut between incumbent Senator Joseph Lieberman and upstart Greenwich business man, Ned Lamont. Anyone following this race is aware of the major issue, some would say single issue where Lamont is concerned, that puts these two at polar opposites. Lieberman has been a strong supporter of Bush’s Iraq war while Lamont is advocating an end to the conflict.
Being a Connecticut resident and an “anti-war nutcase”, I was immediately drawn to Lamont’s campaign, yet I am also aware of his conspicuously conservative voting record as part of the Greenwich legislature, but this concern was not adequate to overcome my distaste for Lieberman’s lust for battle and his irresponsible support for the war.
Yet, it is still a concern and one that can not be dismissed lightly. Lamont is from the affluent city of Greenwich, a successful businessman married to a successful woman who has started several businesses, and the descendent of generations of Wall Street gentry who enriched themselves in the employ of J. P. Morgan.
In the course of researching Ned Lamont I came across some interesting information about his Grandfather, Thomas W. Lamont, Wall Street magnate and chairman of the board for the J. P. Morgan Co. It is a fascinating bit of history that you will not find in any text books used for our children’s education. To learn more about it, follow this link.
If you do take the time to read this under-reported bit of history you may conclude that I am against the candidacy of Ned Lamont, but that is not the case. I am being cautious and I believe with good reason. His grandfather was directly involved with a fascist plot to overthrow the legally elected leader of the United States. Who would not be concerned about that?
Conversely, Ned’s Uncle Corliss Lamont was a Humanist who stood for the rights of individuals and championed leftist ideologies. An ardent champion of civil liberties, he believed that McCarthy's crusade against left-wing liberals represented a dangerous attempt to regulate speech. He served as the director of the American Civil Liberties Union and as chairman of the National Emergency Civil Liberties Committee, eventually winning the Gandhi Peace Award in 1981 for his work. For more info, please go here.
I believe voters need to be cautious and aware of the pitfalls when voting for candidates that are primarily business people. The current administration is evidence of the need for caution. Both Bush and Cheney are former CEO’s and both have alliances to big business that take precedence to the concerns for individuals. It is this kinship with the chieftains of industry that has caused democracy to take a backseat to capitalism. Free Trade has trumped Free Speech and minimized many other freedoms guaranteed by the Bill of Rights.
Finally, I'm sure all of us have heard this lament many times in the past: If I ran my company the way the government runs this country, I'd be out of business! Well, now we have experienced running the country like a business and I think we've had enough of it. I would ask Ned Lamont to acknowledge the failure of the "business model" of government and the need to run government as a Non-profit entity that it must be.
Being a Connecticut resident and an “anti-war nutcase”, I was immediately drawn to Lamont’s campaign, yet I am also aware of his conspicuously conservative voting record as part of the Greenwich legislature, but this concern was not adequate to overcome my distaste for Lieberman’s lust for battle and his irresponsible support for the war.
Yet, it is still a concern and one that can not be dismissed lightly. Lamont is from the affluent city of Greenwich, a successful businessman married to a successful woman who has started several businesses, and the descendent of generations of Wall Street gentry who enriched themselves in the employ of J. P. Morgan.
In the course of researching Ned Lamont I came across some interesting information about his Grandfather, Thomas W. Lamont, Wall Street magnate and chairman of the board for the J. P. Morgan Co. It is a fascinating bit of history that you will not find in any text books used for our children’s education. To learn more about it, follow this link.
If you do take the time to read this under-reported bit of history you may conclude that I am against the candidacy of Ned Lamont, but that is not the case. I am being cautious and I believe with good reason. His grandfather was directly involved with a fascist plot to overthrow the legally elected leader of the United States. Who would not be concerned about that?
Conversely, Ned’s Uncle Corliss Lamont was a Humanist who stood for the rights of individuals and championed leftist ideologies. An ardent champion of civil liberties, he believed that McCarthy's crusade against left-wing liberals represented a dangerous attempt to regulate speech. He served as the director of the American Civil Liberties Union and as chairman of the National Emergency Civil Liberties Committee, eventually winning the Gandhi Peace Award in 1981 for his work. For more info, please go here.
I believe voters need to be cautious and aware of the pitfalls when voting for candidates that are primarily business people. The current administration is evidence of the need for caution. Both Bush and Cheney are former CEO’s and both have alliances to big business that take precedence to the concerns for individuals. It is this kinship with the chieftains of industry that has caused democracy to take a backseat to capitalism. Free Trade has trumped Free Speech and minimized many other freedoms guaranteed by the Bill of Rights.
Finally, I'm sure all of us have heard this lament many times in the past: If I ran my company the way the government runs this country, I'd be out of business! Well, now we have experienced running the country like a business and I think we've had enough of it. I would ask Ned Lamont to acknowledge the failure of the "business model" of government and the need to run government as a Non-profit entity that it must be.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
