Is there a strategy?

It is possible that the Democrats have chosen to keep their own counsel while the effects of the Bush administration take their toll on the country and the world. After all, Bush's own policies are causing his poll numbers to fall as fast as the price of oil is rising. So, why should Democrats offer strategies or opinions that are sure to be ridiculed by the corporate pundits and take the country's attention away from the administrations self immolation?

As much as I would like this to be the case, I am more of the opinion that Democrats find themselves at odds with the war in Iraq. The front runners for the presidential nomination are Hilary Clinton and Joe Biden, who have both stated their belief that we must see the war through and warned of dangers by removing the troops immediately. Isn’t this the same song and dance we heard from John Kerry in ‘04’ and can’t we expect the same results?

A scant few Democrats have taken a position in opposition to the war while most keep to the sidelines, making their critical observations in relative safety. But, now there are several Republicans who have come forward to criticize the war and voice their opposition to their own party’s policies in Iraq. The Democrats are now in jeopardy of being behind the curve as more Republicans find their spines and dare to defy Resident Bush’s war policy.

Even the most faithful republicans are approaching their limits for the abuses of power carried out by this administration. The list of atrocities stretches from the administration’s initial disregard of any and all warnings and intelligence offered by the out-going Clinton team, to the current morass of CIA outings, lying to Congress, misleading the country to go to war, wrecking the economy, the environment and America’s reputation around the world. Moderate Republicans are beginning to realize that their political careers will be at stake if the Democrats regain the presidency, and considering the degree to which this administration has taken liberty with policies, laws and the constitution, they certainly can not feel their positions will be secure. In fact, some may be realizing that they can be judged complicit with some of the transgressions perpetrated under Bush, et al.

Democrats need to take a strong stand against the Iraq war and demand the administration take immediate steps to remove our troops and replace them with an international force. They need to take responsibility for abdicating their duty and voting to give the president the power to declare war with Iraq. They need to demand investigations of the Bush administration’s actions leading up to the war and not be afraid to issue indictments to anyone found in violation of US or international law.

In other words, they need to start doing the jobs they are being paid to do.

A Suggestion for Democrats

The Democratic leaders need to understand that rhetoric like that of Senators Joe Biden, Harry Reid and Hillary Clinton is not what their party wants to hear:

Senate Minority Leader Harry M. Reid (Nev.), Sen. Joseph R. Biden Jr. (Del.) and Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.) reason that success in Iraq at this point is too important for the country. Washington Post

The very Democrats that have complained that Bush has never defined his strategy for Iraq and has no benchmarks for success, are now claiming the importance of achieving it, but have not themselves attempted to define success.

From the WaPo article above an argument is made that Democrats who voted for the war now cling to the belief that we must stay the course in Iraq. "Clearly Democrats are not united in what is the critique of what we're doing there and what is the answer to what we do next," said Steve Elmendorf, a senior party strategist whose former boss, then-House Minority Leader Richard A. Gephardt (Mo.), voted in 2002 to authorize the invasion of Iraq. "The difficulty of coming to a unified position is that for a lot of people who voted for it, they have to decide whether they can admit that they were misled."

I have a suggestion for the Democrats described by Senator Gephardt. First, re-read the Constitution to familiarize yourselves with whom the responsible party is for declaring war. They will learn that - Article I, Section 8 specifies that Congress alone must "declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water."

Next, they should re-read their oath of office - I, Loyal Citizen of the Republic, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.

Finally, they should contemplate the obvious conflict between having sworn to uphold the Constitution in their capacity of office holders in Congress and the abandonment of that duty they committed when they voted to give the authority to go to war in Iraq to the president. If and when they are able to admit to shirking their responsibility, they should reassess their position on the war based on its legal and moral issues and not its impact on their political careers.

Once they have admitted to having made a mistake they can take action to correct it. If they continue to deny their responsibility, they should not be considered seriously for any office.

Ode to a Tyrant

There once was a boy from New Haven
Who by nature was reckless and craven
But he came from a clan
With an imperial plan
So his treatment of others was raven

His family was invested in oil
So the boy for a living wouldn’t toil
He would live off his name
Impervious to shame
And less fortunate lives he would spoil

His dad became second in charge
The boy, Texas governor at large
Since in business he failed
On to politics he hailed
Though all his faults wouldn’t fit on a barge

Then the country elected his dad
For their leader, but he turned out so bad
He claimed “no new taxes”
But that ain’t what the facts is
So one term is all that he had

The new century found the boy in control
Appointed since he lost at the polls
But his ass needed cover
As a democracy lover
So dad’s cronies got all the top roles

9/11 changed the rules of the game
A chance for the boy to win fame
But, once we knew we’d been had
We were already in Baghdad
Though the reasons he gave were all lame

Now he rules over the land like a king
War and torture are now his big thing
Yes, he has broken the law
But claims that God oversaw
But the nation’s opinion he can’t swing

Stop the Presses

Hannity, O’Reilly, Limbaugh, and the rest of the right leaning commentators in the media love protesting the Liberal media and its dominance in the press and over the airwaves. This always amuses me since they are part of the media and must be part of the calculation to determine the media is liberal. Also interesting is the criterion used in determining what qualifies as liberal.

A pet phrase of the conservatives over the past 25 years has been “the liberal media” when referring to any coverage they did not like. The New York Times, LA Times and the Washington Post have been their favorite targets and branded as the “Liberal media elite”. However, any comparison of the so called liberal media with media outlets deemed acceptable by the right wing demonstrates that the main difference is that those labeled as liberal are guilty of covering both sides of an argument. They also have the audacity to include liberal viewpoints along with conservative columns on their editorial pages.

The conservative assault on the liberal media has been a disciplined and long term effort that is now paying dividends in a big way. Either through intimidation by the right, or by corporate influence of the mega-businesses that have acquired the major media companies, news organizations have shown reluctance to cover stories that might leave them open to further ridicule. All of the news outlets, cable and networks, now invite far more conservatives than liberals to discussion panels or to supply political analyses. Press releases from the White House and from Congress are reported uncritically and often with little editing and minimum if any research to corroborate the information supplied.

This environment, created by conservative effort to suppress news that is not to their liking, enabled the abuse of trust introduced by the Bush administration in the form of fake news stories using fake reporters, but aired without informing viewers of the source or the story or who was paying for them.

The most telling example of the conservative take-over of the media is the comparison between news coverage of the Clinton and Bush administrations. You will recall that for nearly eight straight years, every lead, rumor, and unconfirmed hearsay tidbit was headlined by the press. A special prosecutor, Ken Starr, was assigned to investigate the Clintons, but after $80 million and years of investigating not one charge could be proven against them. Had it not been for Clinton’s own indiscretion with that intern, the Republicans would have never been able to foist the circus they called impeachment upon the public. Yet, there is a plethora of evidence to show Bush lied to the American people to garner support for a war with Iraq but, more criminally he lied to Congress and submitted a signed letter to congressional leaders justifying his invasion of Iraq based on these very lies.

Congress has not seen fit to appoint a special prosecutor to investigate these much more serious charges and the reason for that is that the Congress is in the hands of the Republican Party and is in lock-step with their despotic leader. Bush and his accomplices have ridden to power on the torrent of corporate donations which they secured through quid pro quo arrangements with the corporate raiders who want maximum influence in government, exoneration from prosecution for wrong doing and greater profits. This last item is not just greedy but absolutely frightening. Corporations are raking in record profits thanks to Bush’s willingness to sacrifice individuals’ safety and legal rights but, also by encouraging big business to view federal tax revenues as a source of untapped wealth that is theirs for the taking.

Get Real

It's about time that we stop the charade, the pretense of politeness we have been following for the purpose of political correctness and just start to "call 'em as we see 'em?" Primarily, I'm referring to the completely disingenuous description of George W. as anything other than a complete idiot. I am so tired of hearing congress and the media giving him credit for being a savvy politician, or brilliant statesman. Even Democrats followed suit to show deference to the Commander in Chief, but we can now dispense with this sham. The man is a total shit-head who, left to his own devices, couldn't make an informed decision about anything.

That leads us to his other claim that he surrounds himself with smart people with whom he can consult when making these hard decisions. That would mean he is surrounded by Karl Rove, a truly discomforting image.

What about Dick Cheney, you ask? - Dubya consults his Dick when the weighty decision involves energy; otherwise Dick is left to Halliburton hand jobs, vulgar attacks on opponents and trying not to die in case Bush's brain Terri Schiavos from lack of use and the facade of power falls to him.

How about Don Rumsfeld? - Not even Dubya will take seriously anything from the anally retentive chicken hawk who famously said "What we know, what we know we don't know, what we don't know we know..." or something like that.

Alright, Colin Powell? - Had Powell been allowed any input within his first year as Sec. State it could have been useful. But, since his presentation to the UN after swilling the kool-aid he has nothing of interest for Dubya & Co.

What about Condi? - Right! Ms. Rice is, in fact Dr. Rice, a learned professional from the halls of academia who pulled herself up from humble beginnings to achieve the pinnacle of her profession. However, she has effectively overcome this drawback within the Bush administration by prostituting her principles and propagating lies and misinformation in furtherance of the Iraqi war.

No, the pin-head in charge gets his marching orders from Rove who works the deals with the captains of industry who pay unknown costs in campaign funding, confidential access, favors and other considerations for the privilege of enacting their own legislation.

No one of sound mind really believes that our nation is being run by this inarticulate, mentally challenged, mouth-breathing, Darwinian throw-back. The difficult thing to believe is that the American public has tolerated the deception foisted on them by the Neo-Conservative Reichstag without rising up in armed rebellion. Instead, we are witness to the effectiveness of their continuing efforts to pare away individual freedoms by focusing on patriotism, a diversionary tactic used by most of the world's worst dictators.

It is more likely that Dubya is the modern day Lee Harvey Oswald, the infamous patsy set up to take the wrap for the conspirators behind the Kennedy assassination. Dubya is being used in much the same way since he will be the focus of the ire and discontent of the public if the ongoing coup upon democracy fails and the Neo-cons are not able to sweep it away entirely to be replaced by the fascism they so revere. If the international community demands charges be brought against the United States for war crimes and crimes against humanity, whom do you suppose they will want to answer those charges. Of course, the rest of the world hates Cheney and Rumsfeld, but it will be Bush they will want in the hot seat.

In the end, if justice is to be served and democracy saved, Dubya will have to answer for his actions even though he was just following orders. Halliburton and other contractors who raped the government and abused the Iraqis will most likely get a slap on the wrist. Cheney, Rumsfeld, Condi, Powell, etc. will be seen as lesser figures deserving of lesser penalties, leaving dumb-ass Dubya as the main villain. And then won't he regret his lack of sympathy for the execution of the mentally challenged?

The Memo

I add my voice to the rising tide of discontent with the Main Stream Media for the abrogation of their duty to inform the public in regards to the “Downing Street Memo.” However, that is only part of the issue. An even greater concern to the public is the lack of action by Congress, now all aware of the memo and, more importantly, its evidentiary value as proof the Bush administration committed crimes against humanity. Why has no legislation been introduced in the House demanding accountability? Ms. Johnson! Mr. Simmons! Mr. Shays! Taking no action in the face of this information is nothing less than condoning Bush’s crime, and it approaches complicity if any foreknowledge exists.

The majority party in Congress spent eight years and $80 million investigating Clinton for any whiff of impropriety and found nothing until Clinton did himself in with an act of adultery and the lies that followed, but nothing that rose to the level of crimes Republicans accused him of. Now, with one of their own in power, the Republicans block any investigation of similar and far graver accusations against Bush, choosing partisanship over justice.

To avoid being partisan myself, let me ask what action Democrats have taken to bring this situation into national focus. No legislation has come from their side of the aisle either. Of course, our outstanding congresswoman, Rosa DeLauro, has stepped forward and signed Rep. John Conyers’ letter to President Bush demanding answers about the memo. But John Larson’s signature was not one of the 89 courageous, patriotic representatives. Why not?

Senator Chris Dodd has been vocal and visible on Bush’s failings and needs to continue in these efforts, but he also should be concentrating much of his effort on this issue as well. As for Lieberman, well let’s just say that he surrendered his Democratic credentials when he sided with the administration and against the people of this country. The Downing Street Memo severely damages Joe’s support for the Iraq war and for Bush.

For those reading this who are not aware of the Downing Street Memo, please see the opening sentence of this article. There is little awareness because the media in the U.S. has not covered the story while every other major nation has.

Please consider adding your signature to Mr. Conyers letter found on his web log. Let’s get the answers we deserve.

Who is to Blame?

Pension plan – Don’t count on it. Social security – Targeted for extinction. Medicare/Medicaid – Nearly bankrupt. Healthcare benefits – Being sacrificed for corporate profits. Continual war and a failing economy – The new reality!

But don’t be despondent, after all the war on terrorism is going well. That is if the loss of over 1,600 American lives for a war based on our own government’s lies doesn’t bother you.

So, how did we get to this point? Who is to blame for deceiving the public about taxes, job outsourcing, environmental policies, the war and the economy? It is far too easy to lay the blame for all or this on the current occupant of the White House, after all it is our fault that he is there. Besides, Preznit Bush is an entirely invented persona and a facade for the true powers in the administration to operate behind. He is the result of equal parts nepotism, marketing, ideology and stupidity. Bush is a Texas cowboy born, raised and educated in the liberal Northeast (to the never ending chagrin of Yale). A member of the CEO class who never ran a successful business (at least not without being bailed out be the likes of Osama bin Laden’s brother). A “war president” who evaded his own military responsibilities. A former drunk and drug abuser who now enforces the harshest policies on the same. And in his own words: "I'm basically a media creation. I've never done anything. I've worked for my dad. I worked in the oil business. But that's not the kind of profile you have to have to get elected to public office."

We should also not assign total blame to the religious right. Bush and his cronies would have mismanaged the government with or without them. Bush was not a creation of the Evangelicals, rather Bush wandered into their camp with an empty bottle, a cocaine hangover and an ultimatum from Daddy to find sobriety or be disowned. The Christian Taliban has been riding his bandwagon and whipping him relentlessly to stay their course ever since.

It also would be wrong to blame the media, although their coverage of Bush (the man, the candidate, the ideologue) could serve as a role model for ineptitude. Network and cable news consumers have not done a good job of watch dogging the media in recent years. News suppliers would not feel justified cutting away early from, or not covering at all, major political events if the consuming public had voiced their objections. Taking action instead of mindlessly enduring another low budget/high profit reality show might cause the media to take their responsibility to inform the public seriously.

Then there are the Neocons, those self-righteous anti-intellectual parasites who infest the underbelly of government in appointed positions where they lie dormant awaiting an opportunity to strike at any vulnerability of their host. These cretins the likes of Wolfiwitz, Armitage, Libby, Rumsfeld and others rode the federal gravy train at taxpayer expense while networking with other like minded opportunists with a mutual hate for democracy. But we can not put the blame entirely on them because we have always known of their existence and were guarded against their accumulation of power.

And finally, congress, the executors of checks and balances on executive power. Despite the fact that most current members have debased what should be a noble and honorable office through concessions to powerful special interests at the expense of their constituents, they too can not be blamed entirely for our sorry state of affairs. That’s because it is our right and duty to remove from office, by election or impeachment, any member of congress not governing by our consent and by placing the concerns of special interests over those of the electorate.

Not one of those mentioned is completely to blame for the erosion of democracy, but each has contributed generously to its demise. What remains a mystery is why they all seem to be at their most active just now.

Could it be that with the election of George Bush the extreme right feels the time is ripe for them to finally enjoy the results of their 25 year venture to drag the nation to the political right? After many years of hearing conservatives employ the word “liberal” as if they were expectorating, years of their describing the political spectrum as beginning in the center and becoming increasing radical the further to the left it goes, years of their complaining about the media’s liberal bias evidenced by their unfair attacks on all things conservative (when merely facts were being reported), and years of their persistent adherence to talking points in a show of party unity, has the time now come for the Neoconservative drivers of this agenda to step forward and claim their perceived place of leadership over the Republican party and the nation?

One final ingredient would help to solidify the Neocons grip on the political process and allow them to complete the nation’s transition to Fascism. That is the incorporation of Mega-businesses into the government, as Mussolini did in pre-World War II Italy. Gee, I wonder if they can pull it off?