Why do people vote Republican?

It's occasionally good to remind ourselves of why some voters support the Republican Party. A list of reasons made the rounds a couple of years ago. I don't know its author, but one of the online sources is Extremely Smart Humor.

To vote Republican, one must accept these Articles of Faith:

1. Jesus loves you, and shares your hatred of gays, liberals, immigrants, Democrats and everyone else you hate and/or fear.

2. Saddam was a good guy when Reagan armed him, a bad guy when Bush's daddy made war on him, a good guy when Cheney did business with him, and a bad guy when Bush needed a "we can't find bin Laden" diversion.

3. Trade with Cuba is wrong because the country is communist, but trade with China and Viet Nam is vital to a spirit of international harmony.

4. The United States should get out of the United Nations, and our highest national priority is enforcing U. N. resolutions against Iraq .

5. The best way to support the military is to praise the troops in speeches, while slashing veterans' benefits and combat pay.

6. If adolescents are not informed of birth control measures, they won't have sex.

7. Providing health care to all Iraqis is sound policy, but providing health care to all Americans is socialism. HMO's and insurance companies have the best interests of the public at heart.

8. Having the top one percent of Americans become even more wealthy while more than 4.1 million Americans slip into poverty is a huge success for Bush economic policies.

9. Global warming and tobacco's link to cancer are junk science, but creationism should be taught in public schools.

10. Government should limit itself to the powers named in the Constitution, which include banning gay marriages and censoring the Internet.

11. Being a drug addict is a moral failing and a crime, unless you're a conservative radio host. Then it's an illness and you need our prayers for your recovery.

12. A president lying about an extramarital affair is an impeachable offense, but a president lying to drum up support for a war in which thousands die — including well over 100,000 innocent civilians — is sound defense policy.

Business, Washington style

WASHINGTON - In June, officials at the General Services Administration were short of people to process cases of incompetence and fraud by federal contractors, and they responded with what has become the government's reflexive answer to almost every problem.

They hired another contractor.

Without a public debate or formal policy decision, contractors have become a virtual fourth branch of government. On the rise for decades, spending on federal contracts has soared during the Bush administration, to about $400 billion last year from $207 billion in 2000, fueled by the war in Iraq, domestic security and Hurricane Katrina, but also by a philosophy that encourages outsourcing almost everything government does.

• Competition, intended to produce savings, appears to have sharply eroded. An analysis by The New York Times shows that fewer than half of all "contract actions" — new contracts and payments against existing contracts — are now subject to full and open competition.


• The top 20 service contractors have spent nearly $300 million since 2000 on lobbying and have donated $23 million to political campaigns.


• The biggest federal contractor, Lockheed Martin, which has spent $53 million on lobbying and $6 million on donations since 2000, gets more federal money each year than the justice or energy departments.


• Contracting almost always leads to less public scrutiny, as government programs are hidden behind closed corporate doors.


• Companies, unlike agencies, are not subject to the Freedom of Information Act.

A just-completed study by experts appointed by the White House and Congress, the Acquisition Advisory Panel, found that the trend "poses a threat to the government's long-term ability to perform its mission" and could "undermine the integrity of the government's decision making."

• Private contractors outnumber federal employees

Will the war based on lies never end?

Today, as every day, the news is not encouraging . . .

Do Blair and Bush deserve anyone's trust?

The British Government's case for going to war in Iraq has been torn apart by the publication of previously suppressed evidence that Prime Minister Tony Blair lied about Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction.

An attack on Blair's justification by Carne Ross, Britain's key negotiator at the United Nations, has been under wraps because he was threatened with being charged with breaching the Official Secrets Act.

Ross, 40, makes it clear Blair must have known Saddam Hussein possessed no WMDs. He said that during his posting to the UN, "at no time did HMG [Her Majesty's Government] assess that Iraq's WMD (or any other capability) posed a threat to the UK or its interests".

He also reveals British officials warned US diplomats that bringing down the Iraqi dictator would lead to chaos.

• Excuse for war blown apart
• Saddam 'never a threat to UK', inquiry told

Are the Geneva Conventions "quaint"?

The Pentagon called them "among the most dangerous, best-trained, vicious killers on the face of the earth," sweeping them up after Sept. 11 and hauling them in chains to a U.S. military prison in southeastern Cuba.

Since then, hundreds of the men have been transferred from Guantanamo Bay to other countries, many of them for "continued detention."

And then set free.

Decisions by more than a dozen countries in the Middle East, Europe and South Asia to release the former Guantanamo detainees raise questions about whether they were really as dangerous as the United States claimed, or whether some of America's staunchest allies have set terrorists and militants free.

• Majority of Gitmo Detainees Freed in Other Countries
• Memorandum on the Geneva Conventions
• Outsourcing torture

Will Bush gamble more lives on false hopes?

Military planners and White House budget analysts have been asked to provide President Bush with options for increasing American forces in Iraq by 20,000 or more. The request indicates that the option of a major "surge" in troop strength is gaining ground as part of a White House strategy review, senior administration officials said Friday.

Officials said that the options being considered included the deployment of upwards of 50,000 additional troops, but that the political, training and recruiting obstacles to an increase larger than 20,000 to 30,000 troops would be prohibitive.

Senator John McCain, Republican of Arizona, said during a visit to Baghdad this week that American military commanders were discussing the possibility of adding as many as 10 more combat brigades - a maximum of about 35,000 troops - to establish some of control while Iraq's divided political leaders seek solutions to the mounting violence.

• Options Sought for Surge in US Troops

Can McCain win by playing the blame game?

"Straight talking" John McCain's call for thousands more troops in Iraq is just a pathetic ploy to seem like a patriot for the presidential elections.

McCain wants this stupid, pointless, sucker's war to drag on, maybe even get worse. He needs something to rescue us from. He can't win without it. And hey, what's a few thousand more corpses if it means he gets to be president?

• John McCain's Shameless Call for Escalation in Iraq
• Dear John: Get help

Are "establishment" warnings too little too late?

Former Defense Secretary William Perry, a member of the Iraq Study Group, said Saturday that Iraq could turn into a "quagmire" if the Bush administration fails to change strategy.

• Ex-Defense Chief Warns on Iraq Direction

Will dissenting soldiers be labeled "cut'n run" losers?

For the first time since Vietnam, an organized, robust movement of active-duty US military personnel has publicly surfaced to oppose a war in which they are serving. Those involved plan to petition Congress to withdraw American troops from Iraq.

• About Face: Soldiers Call for Iraq Withdrawal

The party's over

Hannibal Cheney flaps his thin, pale lips

Murray: Is it true what they're sayin', he's some kinda vampire?

Clarice Starling: They don't have a name for what he is.

Dr. Frederick Chilton: We've tried to study him, of course, but he's much too sophisticated for the standard tests. - (Silence of the Lambs)

The Vice was asked Tuesday by a conservative radio host: “Would you agree a dunk in water is a no-brainer if it can save lives?”

“Well, it’s a no-brainer for me,” Cheney replied.

White House spokesman Tony Snow insisted that U.S. officials do not talk publicly about interrogation techniques because they are classified.

“You can push all you want. He wasn’t referring to water boarding and would not talk about techniques,” Snow added.

“This country doesn’t torture. We’re not going to torture. We will interrogate people we pick up off the battlefield to determine whether or not they’ve got information that will be helpful to protect the country,” Bush said. (Bush denies Cheney endorsed torture)

The Bush administration refused to define torture. They refused to define interrogation techniques. And then they fought desperately for a new law -- a law never needed, until now, in the nation's 200-year history -- insuring that whatever methods they will not define can not be prosecuted.

Too sophisticated ... or simply criminal?

W. hits the gyroscope; Libby eats the yellow cake

"In shocking news today, the New York Sun reports that Scooter Libby was authorized by none other than President Bush to leak critical Iraq intelligence to The New York Times. The latest dope in the Plame Affair, according to Libby's grand jury testimony, was from a highly classified 'National Intelligence Estimate' and was given to a Times reporter in 2003."

• Bush: Hands possibly as dirty as Scooter Libby's
• Bush authorized leak to Times, Libby told Grand Jury

Shocking news? Hardly. We need not have been prophetical to have foreseen the downfall of the Bush administration. All it took was an elementary understanding of their motivation and their willingness -- their eagerness -- to grab power through lies, dirty tricks and a complete lack of integrity.

Here's what I wrote August 27, 2005:

Independent Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald's upcoming report on the Plame affair may pin the bush administration's neck to the mat for the count -- and all within a court of law.

Are we watching an administration in its "last throes?" No one knows for certain where Fitzgerald's investigation has led him, or what the Grand Jury findings will reveal to the world, but after watching Judith Miller being carted off to jail, a handful of co-conspirators in the White House may soon be croaking like a bullfrog at a Skull and Bones initiation.

I can't imagine a scenario in which the president and vice-president themselves are not culpable, either by commission of a crime or dereliction of duty. The simple fact remains: even if they knew nothing of the illegal leaking of a CIA operative's identity before the fact, they most certainly would have been informed after the leaks were publicized -- had they wanted to know -- faster than the yellow cake could hit the gyroscope.

And, on October 11, 2005, I added:

Heading the list, Bush and Rove have a long history of dirty tricks. They, along with their partners in crime Cheney, Libby, Rice and Bolton, always play to win, however high the gamble or illegal the means. By lying about the reasons to take the country to war, for instance, they thumbed their noses, "big time," at the rule of law. Domestic politics (Bush as war leader), oil (Iraq had it), and the neocons' global strategy (PNAC advocacy explains it), hitched and drove the White House wagon. Ambassador Wilson's report destroyed part of their rationale for rushing to war, so as usual when challenged, they called upon their most trusted allies in the press to discredit the challenger.

Bob Novak, always the toady to a good Republican smear, outed Plame, and other reporters gave cover to traitors within the administration who were illegally peddling classified information. Judith "CIA" Miller, from her perch at the NY Times, had already, in an effort to advance the administration's case for war, relied on unsubstantiated claims of stockpiled WMD's. Her "reliable" sources? Chalabi and others working for the Bush administration. No wonder her intelligence remained secret. Miller was willing to spend time in prison to protect herself and her sources from wide-ranging testimony before a grand jury. Whose interest was she putting first -- the country's or the criminals'?

Jeff Gannon, not a real journalist but a male prostitute playing reporter online (and playing who-knows-what in the White House) claimed, then changed his story, that he had seen classified CIA documents identifying Valerie Plame. Ari Fleischer, Bush's press secretary at the time and a Bush insider, announced his retirement in May 2003 but denied having seen the secret documents. Harriet Miers was another FOG. What did she see and when did she see it? The reward for her loyalty? Uhh... don't ask.

In the end, all the reporters sang: call it the Plame Cantata. Several members of the band -- Rove, Cheney, Libby, Bolton, and possibly others -- may, and I believe will, be indicted by month's end.

Time will tell whether they are able to protect the president himself. Either way, "Bring'em on" Bush will be the biggest loser since Nixon. And rightfully so. The cure for "criminalization of politics" is to take the criminals out of politics -- in leg irons if necessary.

George W. Bush -- wrong then, wrong now

Three years after he invaded Iraq, the 'great war leader' is still wrong.


This month the Bush administration and its supporters celebrate the third anniversary of their war on Iraq.

Their clumsy attempts to revise history prompted me to review my own words from pre-war 2003.

In the months leading up to the war, I posted several rebuttals in response to pro-Bush, pro-war rhetoric coming from members of a family website I had belonged to at the time.

This is one of my longer comments, not appreciated by everyone at the time:

Posted: Friday, February 21, 2003
Subject: Bush foreign policy

George Bush is managing foreign affairs like an elephant in a china shop. Even our strongest ally, the British, are convinced that he is a bigger threat to world peace than either Iraq or North Korea. I think the Bush Team should stop trying to manipulate the world to their own political ends. Bush should fire his war hawk advisers, most of whom managed to avoid battle themselves -- and fire his shoot-from-the-hip War Secretary Rumsfeld -- then replace them with people with some ability to lead the world in keeping Saddam in the cage we've created for him.

Few people in the world believe that Saddam could invade a 7-11 outside the borders of Iraq without being blown to smithereens. For Bush to pretend otherwise, and to spend the past 18 months trying to tie Saddam to 9/11, is part of the reason that so many in the world are afraid of the unbridled power of the United States and Bush's proclaimed new doctrine of "preemption." (The Democrats who rolled over and gave W. practically everything he wanted don't deserve a pass, either.)

I agree that Saddam Hussein would be a threat to his neighbors if he remained unchecked, just as he was in the 1980's when we were assisting him in his war against Iran. But I also believe that he can be contained, and that the real threat to our safety and welfare is El Qaeda and other well-organized terrorist groups that are being ignored in other countries. We must concentrate on our real enemy, terrorism, and we can only accomplish that with the world's support. Saddam is not Hitler, and his tanks are not rolling across Europe. He's not even Kim Jong Il, who has a nuclear program and missiles to deliver the goods (just one more example of what the bumbling name-calling and refusal to use diplomacy got for us).

One has to marvel that in the 18 months following 9/11, we went from a country with the good will of the entire world to the country whose leader is considered the greatest threat to world peace. We need friends in our fight against terrorism, not more distrust of our leaders and their motives.

The way I see it, Osama bin "dead-or-alive" Laden (oddly, never mentioned any more by our president), is a step ahead of us. Surely bin Laden must favor our impending invasion of Iraq. We will be taking out a secular Arab leader that he despises, creating more hatred for America within the Arab world, and destabilizing the Middle East further, including his home, Saudi Arabia -- his plan to perfection. What happens when war begins? Let's say Israel is provoked to join the fight; or maybe Pakistan or India, with their nuclear weapons, will follow our example of preemption in their own dispute; perhaps one or two Arab governments are weakened and religious fanatics gain power.

After we take Baghdad in about 10 minutes, how long will our soldiers remain there, open to attack from terrorists, while our "friends" are perfectly content to allow us to bear the burden? All Osama has to do is sit back for a while, check the landscape, and grow stronger -- with our assistance. He knows that if his plan of terrorism is to succeed, he has to weaken our economy further and keep Americans living in fear.

Of course we all hope for the promised "best case" scenario when we invade -- cheering in the streets and democracy all over the Middle East -- but shouldn't we allow the time to build consensus before opening Pandora's box on our own? War should be the last resort, and much can be done before we are forced into using that option. Because of the offensive boastfulness of Bush, Cheny, Rumsfeld, et al, we need to take the time to undo the damage to our image abroad before we can bring the world around.

As for me, I'll believe that Saddam poses a grave and imminent threat to the United States when I see the Bush children dressed in battle fatigues. If the threat from Iraq is as great as we are told, surely George and Jeb can convince their own children to assume their patriotic duty.

That being said, I am not a peacenik, an appeaser, or any of the other derogatory terms that have been resurrected from the Cold War to describe anyone who disagrees with war now. I support war when our country is at risk -- and I support our military people at all times -- and unlike George Bush, I actually completed my military obligation.

That is exactly why I support an all-out response to terrorism. War with Iraq, under the present conditions, makes us less safe in the years to come. Just my opinion.

Quails' Gate on ice: the big chill

Still no answers on Cheney's latest corker

If the Democrats have any political sense at all (and apparently they don't), they'll beat this story to death with humor. Imagine the Republican glee (and media piling-on) if Clinton or Gore or Dean or Kerry had come so close to blowing somebody away -- and failed so miserably.

Just when we think the incompetence level of the Bush administration demands their full surrender (indictment or impeachment -- whichever comes first), somebody fires off another round. Yesterday we learned it's Cheney's turn again, as if he hadn't already shamed himself enough for one lifetime -- or nine.

This afternoon you may have watched, as I did, press spokesman Scottie face the snarling pack of spotted pointers (ha!), the White House press corps. After a weekend of preparation, he broke from his blind and gave us ... more evasion than a whole covey of quail (although less impressive than AF-1's flight pattern of 9/11/01).

Explaining his complete lack of new information, Scottie duly repeated the lines given to him by the VP's office: Information was still being collected throughout Saturday night and Sunday, and the White House needed full, complete and accurate information before going public.

Very good, Mr. Highly-Paid Mouthpiece-for-Incompetence. So where the hell, two days later, is the information that took so long to collect? Still in the deep freeze, evidently.

The Quails' Gate chill was likely designed (1) to see whether the story would stay frozen; and (2) to give Cheney and his ice goons time to concoct a drink the public would swallow.

Following Scottie's splendid performance of saying nothing, one Faux News reporter, mouthing as always the official White House line of misdirection, couldn't resist commenting on the "press's feeding frenzy," calling it "a tempest in a teapot". He did admit, however, that waiting a day before leaking the story (and then to a local Texas newspaper) may not have been the "best call," seeing as how many questions had been raised by the delaying tactic.

So far, here's what we know (and perhaps all we will ever know). Awards are in order:

• It was the victim's fault that Cheney shot him. [Award: open-backed hospital gown]
  
• It was a private citizen's prerogative to report the incident to a local newspaper -- a day after the shooting, and too late for the Sunday newspapers and news shows. [Award: blue ribbon and a medal; see photo]
  
• It was the Bush administration's responsibility to collect the facts and report them in a timely fashion. [Award: red wine vinegar and oil spill for the tossed truth salad, peppered generously]
  
• It is the press's duty to find the answers to questions that Scottie still can not (or will not) answer, two days after the shooting ... and counting. [Predicted award: a runaway bride's* unused gown and an overused veil of distraction]
  

Now, can we please uncork a bottle of Quails' Gate and get it breathing?


See . . .

• Dick Cheney’s top 10 excuses for shooting fellow hunter
• New crayons and coloring book time
• Photo: Quails' Gate Estate Winery
  

*Feb. 16 update: With no bride willing to cooperate this week, the media resorted to a runaway bitch . . .

• Hunt is on for whippet who took off

Cheney finally earns his Bronze Star

Crazy, you say?

WASHINGTON Feb 12, 2006 (AP)--Vice President Dick Cheney accidentally shot and wounded a companion during a weekend quail hunting trip in Texas, spraying the fellow hunter in the face and chest with shotgun pellets.
(Cheney shoots fellow hunter)

Yep, forty years after his five deferments from military duty, Cheney finally notched a hit. On a friend.

And why not a medal in recognition of superior marksmanship and bravery? Crazier things have happened in the Bush administration.

Only last week W. was honored with a bronze bust for desertion. Certainly his boss Dick deserves no less for courage on the field of battle.

Bush must be stopped

"I have sworn . . . eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man." (Thomas Jefferson)

George W. Bush's claims of almost unlimited executive power has no basis in the U. S. Constitution. He has no intention of backing down, so the battle must be joined. It's time we plant the flag and defend it. If not at home, where? If not now, when?

At a hearing Monday, members of the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee grilled Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, trying to probe the limits of the vast new executive powers claimed by President Bush.

But the senators failed. At every turn, Gonzales refused to acknowledge any limits whatsoever to executive power in a time of war. The proceedings made it clear that the issues at stake in this constitutional crisis go far beyond the specific question of warrantless spying on U.S. citizens who might be communicating with possible terror suspects overseas. They strike at the very heart of civil liberty and of the traditional checks and balances in our government. [....]

With no judicial or congressional oversight, it is hard to know how far the Bush White House is willing to push this extreme theory, or how far it might have taken it already. It claims only to have targeted those supporting terrorists, but that's little comfort from an administration that says any American who disagrees with its policies is aiding and abetting the terrorists. [....]

"We believe that we have all the legal authority we need," Vice President Dick Cheney said.

Until Congress or the courts say otherwise, he's right.

(Bush's spying on al-Qaida not the real issue)

* * *

Bush's spokesman Scott McClellan said the White House will listen to lawmakers' ideas on legislation, but the president has indicated he would resist any move that would compromise the program. "There is a high bar to overcome on such ideas," McClellan said. [....]

As congressional debate continues, public support for the program has grown with the White House's monthlong campaign of speeches and TV appearances to make its case that the monitoring is necessary.

According to the AP-Ipsos poll, some 48 percent of Americans now support the administration's program. That's up from 42 percent last month.

Half now say the administration should have to get a warrant to conduct eavesdropping, down from 56 percent one month ago. Support for the program grew by 9 percentage points among men, but it dropped 8 points -- to 30 percent --in the Northeast.

Some noteworthy trends from Bush's political base:

- Fifty-eight percent of suburban men support the program, up 13 percentage points.
- Fifty-six percent of Southerners support the program, up 12 points.
- Republican support for the program jumped 14 points to 82 percent.
- Independent support is up 17 points, to 53 percent.
-White evangelical support grew by 11 points, to 71 percent.

(Poll: Americans evenly divided on eavesdropping)

* * *

Folks, we're in trouble.

That support for unchecked power will not weaken, and may grow stronger, minus strong voices of opposition from political leaders -- and from people like you and me. Here's why:

Republicans, unwilling to expose, challenge and stop presidential abuses, are behaving as if they will remain in power forever. And they may.

So driven are they to retain power -- and to win at any cost, the hell with governing -- they will sacrifice their own supposed principles, bankrupt the treasury, rape the environment, and screw future generations by destroying the country's foundations of liberty, equality and democracy. They eagerly embrace, for short-term political advantage, whatever cynical, unethical, or illegal abuses of power the Bush administration inflicts upon the country.

Little better are the Democrats of Congress. Too few of them are providing the leadership needed to arouse the public against an authoritarian, quasi-theocratic regime. Stories like this don't help:

Abramoff's records show his lobbying partners billed for nearly two dozen phone contacts or meetings with Reid's office in 2001 alone.

(Democratic leader Reid aided Abramoff clients)

* * *

That's more than I call my mother.

Senator Reid is a wilting, ineffective leader who, guilty of improper conduct or not, has not been forthcoming about his contributions and contacts with lobbyists. Time for him to go, along with every other elected official who is failing America in its time of peril.

If Democrats can't find people capable of leading; if they can't cleanse their own house of every appearance of corruption; if they are unwilling to enunciate their principles and fight to the death for them -- how the hell can they expect voters to draw distinctions between their party and the "party of corruption?"

Now is the time for each of us to speak, loudly and clearly: Bush must be stopped.

For if we lose this battle, our voices may be silenced forever.

Conservatives trust Bush, not the Constitution

David Brooks, NY Times columnist and PBS political analyst, asked readers this week to play a little game of "You're the president." He believes that "FISA shortcomings," in his words, practically forced the Bush administration to evade legal and legislative oversights when it designed its secret program of spying on Americans.

Brooks' game defines four choices, none of them perfect, from which the president chose the only acceptable option, according to Brooks. After long and hard thought, intensive research, and consultation with "conservative" legal advisors, the following options were the only ones that Brooks -- and apparently the entire Bush administration -- could imagine:

1. "Ask Congress to rewrite the FISA law...." Bad idea, says Brooks. The president cannot trust Congress to rewrite the law in a way that would give him the unfettered power he needs to keep us safe in the brave new world of the 21st Century.
   


2. "... Avoid Congress and set up a self-policing mechanism using the Justice Department and the NSA Inspector general," (whatever "self-policing" means). The problems there, according to Mr. Brooks? That would be "legally dubious"; some intelligence bureaucrat might leak the secret spy program in hopes of throwing a presidential election; and again, the president can't trust Congress to keep a secret spy program secret.
   


3. "... Informal congressional oversight." Another terrible idea, says Mr. Brooks. The president does not trust Congress. Why risk having some congressman (liberal traitor, in all likelihood) blab that the executive branch is spying on the public? Someone might question who is being monitored and how that information is being used.
   


4. That left the president one last, dreadful option, in Brooks' opinion: "Face the fact that we will not be using our best technology to monitor the communications of known terrorists. Face the fact that the odds of an attack on America just went up."
   

Wow! Thanks, David. You certainly simplified things for anyone unable to think of alternatives to one-man rule: Trust the president to operate in secret. Or die.

To steadfast Bush supporters, the job of keeping America safe is complicated because the president can trust no one outside his inner circle -- not the courts, not the bureaucratic spies themselves, not the Congress, and least of all, the people. The thought never occurs to them that putting blind faith in any president -- especially this one -- is not an option for the ones of us who value both liberty and security.

Don't you find it curious, Mr. Brooks, even hypocritical, that the so-called conservative wing of American politics places great faith in George W. Bush the man, but little trust in the people and the rule of law? You do remember, do you not, the cry for "the rule of law" that still echoes from Republican gamers who struggled mightly to bring down another president? You do understand the significance of that little piece of paper, the U. S. Constitution?

Because "You're the president" is a game designed for the simple-minded, I'll keep my play calling simple as well. You failed to include the one option which is not optional at all, but a mandatory rule the president -- any president, even one you trust -- must respect if the country is to remain secure against threats, both foreign and domestic: Obey the law.

• New York Times column (subscription required) ...Big Brother is you
• Article excerpts ... Cracks in the facade

Something wicked this way comes

Bush's authoritarian presidency is America's greatest threat

"By the pricking of my thumbs, something wicked this way comes." - Macbeth, by William Shakespeare, Scene IV, Act i.

With the world's most powerful military at his command, George W. Bush approved policies three years ago that enpowered and encouraged members of the U. S. military to spy on American citizens -- people like you and me:

Under the programs, civilians and military personnel at defense installations are encouraged to file reports if they believe they have come across people or information that could be part of a terrorist plot or threat, either at home or abroad. The Talon reports are fed into a database managed by the Counterintelligence Field Activity, or CIFA, a three-year-old Pentagon agency whose budget and size are classified.

[....]

The Talon reports -- the number is classified, officials said -- can consist of "raw information" that "may or may not be related to an actual threat, and its very nature may be fragmented and incomplete," according to a 2003 memo signed by then-Deputy Defense Secretary Paul D. Wolfowitz.

Now that the programs have been exposed, the Pentagon is promising to 'review' its massive and poorly managed database on U. S. citizens:

"On the surface, it looks like things in the database that were determined not to be viable threats were never deleted but should have been," [a senior defense department official] said. "You can also make the argument that these things should never have been put in the database in the first place until they were confirmed as threats."

Who will determine which supposed threats are confirmed and how reports will be handled in the future? Why, the same folks who created the illegal programs in the first place -- the same Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld Pentagon that cannot account for billions of missing dollars in Iraq; the same leadership that gave us Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo, and "happy Iraqi" news via Pentagon propaganda purchased with funds that should have been spent on body armor for soldiers.

Isn't a Rumsfeld-led Pentagon review of its own activities rather like Duke Cunningham investigating bribery, Karl Rove investigating dirty tricks, Bill Frist investigating the SEC or Tom DeLay investigating political sleaze? Not to mention all the administration's deceitful "reviews" of WMD stockpiles in Iraq, the imaginary links between Al-Qaeda and Saddam Hussein, and the "slam dunk" distortion of intelligence that led us into the Iraq invasion.


Further demonstrating his administration's contempt for the U. S. Constitution, the president also admitted this week that, under the guise of protecting the country from terrorist threats, he had secretly authorized the National Security Agency to bypass or ignore -- whenever some nameless administration official or NSA spy deemed it expedient -- the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court and to eavesdrop on U. S. citizens:

Previously, surveillance on American soil was generally limited to foreign embassies.

American law usually requires a secret court, known as a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, to give permission before intelligence officers can conduct surveillance on US soil.

Some people, mainly diehard Bush supporters, may be unconcerned that their own personal mail, telephone conversations, internet emails, blog comments and web surfing history -- even their computer hard drives -- may be monitored by Big Brother. They trust the Bush administration to use its assumed powers properly, although Mr. Bush himself refuses to tell us the rules to the spy game he is playing upon his own people. They trust an administration that remains cloaked in secrecy, that outs a CIA operative to advance its own agenda, that buys and distributes propaganda with our tax dollars.

So, before shrugging off the authoritarian practices that unleashed America's most powerful spy agency upon us, we should take a closer look at the National Security Agency's tremendous size and powers:

A few miles out of Washington, on Route 1 to Baltimore, lies an inconspicuous military installation called Fort Meade. You would not notice it unless you knew what to look for. In fact, on most road maps, Fort Meade does not exist. And yet it contains the largest mass of secrets in the world.

Though invisible on the map, 38,000 people work at the agency every day, more than the CIA and FBI put together - every one of them sworn to a lifetime of secrecy. They have their own police force, shopping malls and sports complexes - and their own television network, complete with newsreaders.

According to author James Bamford, who has studied the NSA for years, each one of their dozen largest listening posts around the world picks up more than two million communications an hour - cell phones, diplomatic traffic, emails, faxes. That works out at 500 million hours every day.

Feel safer?

I don't. Not with a sociopathic president who sports a track record of creating his own reality, twisting intelligence, ignoring human rights and operating in secrecy at every opportunity. His aggressive attempts to seize uncontrolled executive powers have met with little or no judicial oversight, with absolutely nothing but self-serving lip service to the rule of law from a Republican controlled Congress, with acquiescence and political cowardice from the opposition party, and with impotent press coverage by a supine, incurious and sometimes complicit fourth estate

The president's mad grab for unlimited power is being done under the guise of fighting terrorism -- but the security measures and political machinations are defined and plotted by his inner circle of allies behind closed doors. What a tragedy for our country that we have allowed one man, backed by a Republican Party's lust for power at any cost, to use 9/11 as an opening to pursue an authoritarian agenda.

As Benjamin Franklin put it over two centuries ago, "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither safety nor liberty."


George W. Bush not only has made us less free, he has made us less safe. The level of arrogance, recklessness, and lawlessness displayed by this president and his administration should arouse not only fear and concern -- but condemnation and outrage -- from every American.

Absolute power corrupts absolutely

New tests fuel doubts about vote machines in Florida
... Republican apparatchiki not concerned

WASHINGTON, Dec. 15 - A political operative with hacking skills could alter the results of any election on Diebold-made voting machines -- and possibly other new voting systems in Florida -- according to the state capital's election supervisor, who said Diebold software has failed repeated tests.

A spokeswoman for the secretary of state's office [political appointment of Jeb Bush] said any faults [Leon County election chief] Sancho found were between him and Diebold.

Bush touts 'watershed' Iraq vote
... a la Florida 2000

WASHINGTON, Dec. 14 - In his final push before elections in Iraq, President Bush on Wednesday touted this week's election as a milestone for the Iraqi people and described how 2005 has been a historic year for the Middle East.

Bush accepts 'ban on torture' proposal
... long after everyone but Cheney knew he had little choice

WASHINGTON, Dec. 15 - President Bush embraced Sen. John McCain's proposal to ban cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment of terrorism suspects on Thursday, reversing months of opposition that included White House veto threats.

Bush secretly authorized NSA to spy on US citizens - without court-approved warrants
... fighting the 'enemy' here

WASHINGTON, Dec. 15 - Months after the Sept. 11 attacks, President Bush secretly authorized the National Security Agency to eavesdrop on Americans and others inside the United States to search for evidence of terrorist activity without the court-approved warrants ordinarily required for domestic spying, according to government officials.

Bush-Rumsfeld Defense Department illegally spying on US citizens
... Beware the Quakers bearing peace

WASHINGTON, Dec. 14 - A year ago, at a Quaker Meeting House in Lake Worth, Fla., a small group of activists met to plan a protest of military recruiting at local high schools. What they didn't know was that their meeting had come to the attention of the U.S. military.

A secret 400-page Defense Department document obtained by NBC News lists the Lake Worth meeting as a “threat” and one of more than 1,500 “suspicious incidents” across the country over a recent 10-month period.

Senator Feingold finally has numbers on his side
... along with the US Constitution

WASHINGTON, Dec. 15 - In Congress, where numbers are everything, the math on the Patriot Act suddenly seems to be moving in favor of Sen. Russell Feingold.

He was a minority of one four years ago, when the Wisconsin Democrat cast the lone Senate vote against the USA Patriot Act in the traumatic weeks after the Sept. 11 attacks. The law, he said then, gave government too much power to investigate its citizens. Ninety-nine senators disagreed.

Now add more than two dozen senators to Feingold's side, including the leaders of his party and some of the chamber's most conservative Republicans, and the balance of power shifts.

December 16 update ....

Senate rejects extension of falsely-named 'Patriot Act'
... as Republicans struggle fiercely to retain 'absolute power'

WASHINGTON, Dec. 16 - The Senate on Friday rejected attempts to reauthorize several provisions of the USA Patriot Act as infringing too much on Americans' privacy and liberty, dealing a huge defeat to the Bush administration and Republican leaders.

In a crucial vote early Friday, the bill's Senate supporters were not able to get the 60 votes needed to overcome a threatened filibuster by Sens. Russ Feingold, D-Wis., and Larry Craig, R-Idaho, and their allies. The final vote was 52-47.

Same there as here: US buys good news

Bush administration exports its ethical standards to Iraq

Washington--U.S. Army officers have been secretly paying Iraqi journalists to produce upbeat newspaper, radio and television reports about American military operations and the conduct of the war in Iraq.

... Many military officials ... said they were concerned that the payments to Iraqi journalists and other covert information operations in Iraq had become so extensive that they were corroding the effort to build democracy and undermining U.S. credibility in Iraq. They also worry that information in the Iraqi press that's been planted or paid for by the U.S. military could "blow back" to the American public.

... On Tuesday, Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld hailed what he called the country's "free media," saying they were acting as "a relief valve" through which Iraqis have been engaging in democratic debate and dialogue.

... In addition to the Army's secret payments to Iraqi newspaper, radio and television journalists for positive stories, U.S. psychological-warfare officers have been involved in writing news releases and drafting media strategies for top commanders, two defense officials said.

... While the Pentagon's media campaign in Iraq harks back to CIA efforts in Italy, Greece and elsewhere after World War II to discredit communism and promote pro-Western ideas, it also reflects a widespread belief by some Bush administration officials that the news media are merely another interest group to be spun, influenced, bullied or, if necessary, bought or rented.

... "They don't represent the public any more than other people do," White House Chief of Staff Andrew Card once said, as quoted in The New Yorker magazine. "In our democracy, the people who represent the public stood for election. I don't believe you have a check-and-balance function."

• U.S. military pays Iraqis for positive news stories on war
• Military's information war is vast and often secretive
• Payola pundits just the tip of the iceberg
• CPB and Tomlinson, Times and Judith Miller, Post and Woodward

Who in the bush administration will be indicted?

Bill Kristol said on Fox News Sunday that he hates "the criminalization of politics." One would assume, then, that Kristol and his neocon friends were screaming to high heaven throughout the eight years that Bill Clinton was hounded by the entire Republican Party, right? Sure, they were screaming, all right -- to have the whole weight of the government thrown against a political opponent.

So, what has brought Kristol and his gang to their latest frothing at the mouth, now that Republicans control all three branches of government -- executive, legislative and judicial (as well as the fourth and fifth branches of government, lobbyists and the press)? Answer: fear that some of their "political chums" are about to become Special Counsel Fitzgerald's "criminal chumps."

Here's what should happen: four or more people are likely to face charges for conspiracy, obstruction of justice and/or perjury.

Heading the list, Bush and Rove have a long history of dirty tricks. They, along with their partners in crime Cheney, Libby, Rice and Bolton always play to win, however high the gamble or illegal the means. By lying about the reasons to take the country to war, for instance, they thumbed their noses, big time, at the rule of law. Domestic politics (Bush as war leader), oil (Iraq had it), and the neocons' global strategy (PNAC advocacy), hitched and drove the White House decision makers to engage the US in the war against Iraq. Ambassador Wilson's report destroyed part of their rationale for rushing to war, so as usual when challenged, they called upon their most trusted allies in the press to discredit the challenger.

Bob Novak, always the toady to a good Republican smear, outed Plame, and other reporters gave cover to traitors within the administration who were illegally peddling classified information. Judith "CIA" Miller, from her perch at the NY Times, had already, in an effort to advance the administration's case for war, relied on unsubstantiated claims of stockpiled WMD's. Her "reliable sources"? Chalabi and others working for the Bush administration. No wonder her intelligence remained secret. Miller was willing to spend time in prison to protect herself and her sources from wide-ranging testimony before a grand jury. Whose interest was she putting first -- the country's or the criminals'?

Jeff Gannon, not a real journalist but a male prostitute playing reporter online (and in the White House) claimed, then changed his story, that he had seen classified CIA documents identifying Valerie Plame. Ari Fleischer, Bush's press secretary at the time and a Bush insider, announced his retirement in May 2003 but denied having seen the secret documents. Harriet Miers was another FOG throughout that time period. What did she see and when did she see it? The reward for her loyalty? Uhh... don't ask.

In the end, all the reporters sang: call it the Plame Cantata. Several members of the band -- Rove, Cheney, Libby, Bolton, and possibly others -- may, and I believe will, be indicted by month's end. Time will tell whether they are able to protect the president himself. Either way, "Bring'em on" Bush will be the biggest loser since Nixon. And rightfully so. The cure for "criminalization of politics" is to take the criminals out of politics -- in leg irons if necessary.

Other characters: Wikipedia - Plame affair

Judith Miller upheld her own principles

"I'm sure I did many things that were not completely perfect in the eyes of either First Amendment absolutists or those who wrote every day saying 'Testify, testify, you're covering up for these people,'"....

"I am very, very proud to be able to say that I got things that no other journalist has ever gotten out of a process like this," Ms. Miller told the newsroom.

- New York Times

You bet your germy jailhouse tee, Ms Miller, you "got things no other journalist has ever gotten," like all that extra jail time -- in defense of slime peddlers. Can't wait for the book -- not.

Whatever the outcome of the Fitzgerald investigation, I won't be convinced that Judith Miller was not covering corruption. Her behavior over the past four years has a stench of insiderness that disgraces her profession.

In my book (based on more facts than Miller's WMD hype for invading Iraq), she's the opposite of a First Amendment hero. I've always suspected her as a CIA operative, but -- unlike Valerie Plame's outing -- we'll probably never know, will we?

And if I'm wrong I'll eat that shirt.

Bushcorp Writhes in Its Own 'Last Throes'

After three long years of misleading Americans on the Iraq invasion and occupation, George Bush and his administration have destroyed whatever trust we had placed in them. No doubt as they writhe in their last bitter throes before combusting into ignominy, Bush and his loyalists will redouble their efforts to obstruct the tides of truth and bury the mountains of lies that have destroyed their administration's credibility. That's the nature of the Bush gang.

Such cowardly strategies have long since lost their effectiveness, however. No one paying attention to the surrounding world retains a scintilla of trust in the words or the competence of George Bush. The long-sufferance of the American people has been exhausted. Bush and his gang of co-conspirators stand exposed and they must be held accountable. That's the nature of democracy.

In Iraq, the promised WMD's evaporated into the desert haze, the flowers that were supposed to greet our soldiers were obliterated by our bombs, and the barrels of purple ink failed to resurrect the tens of thousands of Iraqi lives "liberated" from earth's physical realm.

Granted, all those terrified Iraqi children were not "slaughtered by their own leader." So are we expected to applaud the war president who saved them with his own deadly brand of freedom? What a comfort to their families that must be! What an outrage to the rest of the world. And what a recruiting tool for terrorists.

Since Heirmann G. Dubya Bush pranced across the flight deck of the USS Abraham Lincoln two years ago and declared "Mission Accomplished," his march to victory in Iraq has turned more corners than Air Force One's flight pattern of 9/11.

Dick Cheney, his VP and COO, rounding yet another corner to imminent glory, claimed recently that the Iraq insurgency is in its last throes. He offered no prediction as to how long a last throe lasts: maybe five years... ten years... generations? In an extended interview with CNN's Wolf Blitzer Thursday, the Dick's body double rattled off a smug definition of "throes," but refused the opportunity to define "last."

Here's a hint, Mr. Smirkoff, for you to lug back to your hidden cave and gnaw on with the side or your lying mouth that still works -- we're building permanent military bases in Iraq. And Halliburton, with a $25 billion market cap, has seen its stock price quadruple since the summer of 2002. Does that help you get a handle on reality?

Later in the week, Dubya's right arm and bosom buddy Karl Rove sloshed an overflowing White House jar of slop onto a delighted crowd of New York scatologists:

"Conservatives saw the savagery of 9/11 in the attacks and prepared for war. Liberals saw the savagery of the 9/11 attacks and wanted to prepare indictments and offer therapy and understanding for our attackers," Karl the Pit Rover gushed full-throated onto the conservative throng.

Nasty try, Karl and Dick and all the other reverberators of the P-NAC "batty-whacked" club -- Project for the New American Century -- but Americans are no longer as confused as you may think. Every time you secretly sneak another dead American back into the country from Iraq, someone takes notice. The bodies are mounting. Their spirits cry out for justice.

The American people deserve leaders we can trust. George Bush and his administration have failed in honesty and integrity and competency. We must hold them accountable. Now. 2008 is several years too late.


Ex-GOP co-chairman will be new CPB president

Now we know for certain, the whole funding debate on public broadcasting was a sham. The new president and chief executive of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting was announced Thursday. A real shocker, too -- the former Republican Party co-chairwoman from 1997-2001, Patricia S. Harrison.

Later the same day, the Republican-controlled House voted to restore $100 million that had been cut from the corporation's $400 million budget last week by the House Appropriations Committee. Double shock, huh.

Ms. Harrison has no experience in broadcasting, but since when does competence matter to this admimistration? She knows the party line.

Republicans appear determined to turn public broadcasting into another of their propaganda tools. Whatever happens in future elections, they'll have their own judiciary and, now, their own radio and television network, all paid for by the American taxpayers.