Attacking Iran...the consequences

With all this talk coming from the neocon camp about attacking Iran, little is being said about the actual consequences of such an endeavor. And they would be grave.

The first direct consequences to the US would be a loss of oil from the Persian Gulf as a whole. What few allies we have in that region would feel compelled to act in support of Iran, a fellow Muslim state. And any US shipping in the Gulf would be at risk, if not outright forfeit. Fuel prices in the US would immediately spike, killing whatever economic growth may projected prior to such an attack. And, just for shits and giggles, China might call in its loans. America would be dead as a world economic power.

Israel would be faced with attacks from Syria, on its Western border, as well as ballistic missiles from Iran. They would also face attack from Hammas and Hezbollah, both creatures of Iran, as well as concerted attacks from Palestinian forces. Egypt might be dragged into the fray as well, given their large population of radical mullahs and their followers. The lines between Sunni and Shi'a would be erased in a tide of bloody rage against the US and its allies in the region and around the world.

On the world stage we simply could not count on any support, from any of our allies including Britain, especially given the lie given to the Bush administration's claims of a threat of WMD's from Iraq. America would stand isolated and alone in the world. A potential world war could be triggered, with America as its target.

But such consequences seem to be of little import to the Bush Administration, especially in the office of Dick Cheney. The only glimmer of light here is that Rummy has been given the boot. But Bob Gates is no real improvement, as he was a vocal supporter of military action against Nicaragua in the 1980's. He is also said to have little appetite for diplomacy and is an advocate of no-holds barred diplomacy, including military action.

While an attack on Iran may not come to pass, it is hoped, we should bear in mind some of the possible consequences of such an attack. The Bush administration's unilateralism may yet bear bitter fruit for America and the world.

We can't win, but you're staying anyways.

"If you mean by 'military victory,' an Iraqi government that can be established and whose writ runs across the whole country, that gets the civil war under control and sectarian violence under control in a time period that the political processes of the democracies will support, I don't believe that is possible," - Henry Kissinger, 11/19/06

Hmmmm...Let me think now...Wasn't that the reason Poppy Bush didn't march into Baghdad in 1991?

I think for us to get American military personnel involved in a civil war inside Iraq would literally be a quagmire. Once we got to Baghdad, what would we do? Who would we put in power? What kind of government would we have? Would it be a Sunni government, a Shia government, a Kurdish government? Would it be secular along the lines of the Ba’ath Party? Would it be fundamentalist Islamic? I do not think the United States wants to have U.S. military forces accept casualties and accept the responsibility of trying to govern Iraq. I think it makes no sense at all. - Dick Cheney, 4/7/91

We knew in 1991 what would happen if US forces toppled Saddam Hussein. The wargaming of an invasion of Iraq in 1999 showed that what we see in Iraq now was the likely outcome even with far larger numbers of troops than what we went into Iraq with in 2003.

Hank went on to further state that, "...he would have preferred a post-invasion policy that installed a strong Iraqi leader from the military or some other institution and deferred the development of democracy until later. "If we had done that right away, that might have been the best way to proceed,". But isn't that what was in place prior to Chimpy and Co's invasion of Iraq? Why don't we just dust off Saddam and re-install him as the leader of Iraq? It wouldn't be the first time a US administration has propped him up.

But think, what a horrible thing to say to our soldiers in Iraq. "There's no way to win militarily, but we're going to leave you in harm's way anyways." What a horrible betrayal of the trust our troops have that their sacrifices won't be in vain.

And, while there are few similarites to Viet Nam militarily, it is in the political arena that the similarities are most striking. Just as Lyndon Johnson advocated a "stay the course" policy, I won't dignify it with the term "strategy", so too does this President advocate staying the course, with no real strategy apparent. Just as in Viet Nam, it is the politicians who are driving the policy, not the generals on the ground. Just as in Viet Nam, our troops will be left in harm's way until the politicians have decided that they have saved enough face. How can Bush, Cheney, or anyone else in this failed administration, ask any of our soldiers to be the last one to die for a mistake?

As more and more neo-con's jump ship on the policy in Iraq, which they pushed for...Despite the repudiation of the Administration policy in Iraq on November 7th, Chimpy and Co seem to have little interest in making any changes to policy in Iraq. Their grip on the reality of the situation in Iraq is tenuous at best, and their policy is still "Stay the course...". So the profligate spending of American blood and treasure will continue unabated until this Administration leaves office. Then, the real work will begin...Cleaning up the mess they have left behind.

I can just hear it now...

With Robert Gates coming on board as the new Secretary of Defense, James Baker and his Iraq Study Group, as well as Lawrence Eagleberger and Alan Simpson at Jr.'s side, it seems that Poppy and his friends are coming to bail Jr. out...again.

Like ion 1966 when he was arrested while at Yale on disorderly conduct charges. Or perhaps when he was arrested for a DUI in Maine on Labor Day weekend in 1976. And then there was the purchase of a failing Arbusto Energy by Reagan/Bush I supporters (Poppy was VEEP at the time), William DeWitt and Mercer Reynolds. Not only did they buy Arbusto, they made Jr. President of the new company, Spectrum 7. They also sold him a chunk of the Texas Rangers for a pittance, which he later sold at a profit. Needless to say, he didn't have much input into the Ranger's business decisions. But guess what? Two years after Arbusto was sold to Spectrum 7, that company was going belly up. And, you got it, Spectrum 7 was bought by Harken Energy in 1986. And, Harken had friends of the Bush family on its board.

It should also be noted that Khalid Bin Mahfouz was on Harkens board, as well as the board of BCCI, which was used by the CIA to launder money before BCCI collapsed. This is important because at a time when Harken was hemorrhaging cash, a $25 million dollar Harken stock offering was underwritten by Stephen's Inc headed by Jackson Stephens, a big-time contributor to Poppy Bush's campaign war chest. This offering was placed with the Union Bank of Switzerland, a joint venture partner with BCCI. Amazing what being the son of a VPOTUS can get done for you.

And, of course there were the sales of Jr.'s Harken stock that he conveniently forgot to notify the SEC about. And golly, the stock tanked just a few short weeks later. The SEC investigated with no further charges. But guess what? The SEC chariman at the time was Richard C. Breeden, a friend of the Bush family and one time employee of Bush family consiglieri, James Baker.

And now, after a mid-term election which was a repudiation og Jr.'s war in Iraq and his failure as a President, I can just hear it now. The plaintive call of a spoiled rich-kid in over his head..."Daaaaaaaady!"

Unconstitutional...? Let me count the ways...

Today, George W. Bush, a.k.a. Chimpy McPresident, signed the Military Commissions Act...20 DAYS after it was passed by Congress, and 18 DAYS after Congress was adjourned.

Why the emphasis on the timeline here? It's a matter of how the Constitution provides for the handling of bills once they are passed by Congress and sent to the President's desk.

Article 1, Section 7 of the U.S. Constitution, states:

If any Bill shall not be returned by the President within ten Days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the Same shall be a Law, in like Manner as if he had signed it, unless the Congress by their Adjournment prevent its Return, in which Case it shall not be a Law.

Only two days passed between the passage of the Bill for signing and the adjournment of Congress. Eighteen days passed between the time Congress adjourned and Bush's signing of the Bill. Under the provisions outlined in Article 1, Section 7 of the Constitution, this Bill was effectively vetoed, and cannot become law. Whether this was a deliberate calculation on the part of the Administration, or just another screw-up is moot. The law was null and void before Bush ever signed it.

Had this bill actually become law, it has the additional difficulty as outlined in Article 1, Section 9, Para 2:

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.

To my knowledge, no rebellion or invasion has been demonstrated as grounds for suspending habeas corpus, which is the foundation for many other rights outlined in the Bill of Rights. Congress passed a bill which was unconstitutional from its inception, and exceeded its authority in this matter.

No matter how you slice it or dice it, this Bill is dead, and Bush, again, exceeded his authority by signing it into law today. If it is allowed to stand, despite these grossly unconstitutional provisions and circumstances regarding its signing, we can safely put the republic to rest, for it will be well and truly dead.

The banality of evil...

I was reminded of the banality of evil this morning as I watched Senator Bill Frist on "This Week: with George Stephanopoulos". As he sat there, grinning and twitching his way through the interview, he repeatedly defended President Bush's policy regarding the torture of detainees thought to be members of extremist groups, I could only wonder at his utter disdain for the rule of law.

But the rule of law doesn't seem to be an issue for this president or those who support him. Given the recent "compromise" on torture and the Geneva Conventions between the White House and the so-called "rebels" in the GOP, led by John McCain, the rule of law in this nation is on its way to becoming little more than a vague memory.

This "compromise" would allow the president to establish his own interpretations of the Geneva Conventions with no more than an executive order. It will also render immune from prosecution members of the CIA and the military for past violation of the Conventions. Another provision of this "compromise" will eliminate any possibility of detainees to challenge their imprisonment through the use of habeas corpus. The net result of this would be that innocent detainees could be locked away and tortured...er...subjected to "alternative" interrogation practices, indefinitely and never have a chance for their case to be independently reviewed.

The "compromise" would also prevent the use of the Geneva Conventions in any suit brought against the US government. This would mean that those individuals tried by the military commissions established by this "compromise" would not be able to challenge the legality of those commissions by claiming they don't meet the "fair trial" standards of the Geneva Conventions Common Article III.

If this "compromise" becomes law, for the first time in US history, testimony obtained throught torture...er..."alternative" interrogation practices, will be allowed into evidence. Thus, a defendant could be convicted and executed on the basis of coerced testimony...A violation of one of the foundations of American jurisprudence since this nations inception.

And last, but not least, this "compromise" will allow the Administration to hide its “sources, methods or activities by which the United States acquired evidence”, should those practices be deemed "classified". But guess what boys and girls...All of the "alternative" interrogation practices sanctioned for use by the Administration are classified. In short, no defendant brought before a military commission will be able to challenge the torture or abuse they were subject to.

This is what Senator Frist was defending, seeming to almost relish the thought of torture. Grinning blandly while parroting the unsubstantiated Administration assertion that intelligence obtained through the use of "alternative" interrogation practices has prevented further terrorist attacks and saved countless American lives. I challenge Chimpy McPresident and his Administration to submit public evidence of this assertion. But I know they never will.

It should also be remembered that fourteen of the detainees at GITMO were transfered there from secret prisons the Administration, until recently, denied ever existed. This alone merits prosecution of members of the Bush administration, including the president himself, as war criminals.

U.S.: Senate Leaders Reject Explicit Redefinition of Geneva Conventions

COMPROMISE BILL ON MILITARY COMMISSIONS WOULD STILL AUTHORIZE INDEFINITE DETENTION WITH NO POSSIBILITY OF LEGAL CHALLENGE

Voting...A crap shoot?

Unless things have changed drastically since the June 13, 2004 NYT editorial "Gambling on Voting" was published, and all indications are that they haven't, I'll be voting by absentee ballot.

There needs to be a national regulatory standard for all electronic voting systems that is at least as robust as Nevada's regulatory standards for electronic gaming systems.

The Nevada State Gaming Commission has access to all gambling software, and this software is being contiuously spot-checked against copies of the software kept by the Commission. Incidentally, it is illegal for casinos to use any software not on file with the Commission. Gambling machines must be resistant to electrostatic shocks as high as 20,000 volts, and they must be physically tamper resistant. Any attempt to physically tamper with the machines locks the machine which must be manually reset after it has been shown to be operating properly. It has been demonstrated, repeatedly, that current electronic voting systems can be physically hacked, with no trace of the hack ever being made apparent.

The Nevada state facility which certifies gaming machines is taxpayer funded with fees charged by the facility going into the atates general fund. It also keeps manufacturers of electronic gaming equipmetn at arms length and is open to public inquiry. Contrast this with federal labs which certify voting machines. These facilities are profit making operations which get chosen by and paid for by the manufacturers of electronic voting systems. Can you say "Conflict of interest...", I knew you could. Neither we nor our elected officials have any way of knowing just what the proceedures for testing these voting machines are and the labs which do the testing are not open to inquiries into them.

In the event of a probelem with an electronic gambling machine, Nevada casinos must immediately contact the Gaming Control Board, which has investigators available 7/24. THe machine is than opened and inspected. A voter has a problem with their vote, they can call their local board of elections, which may, or may not, investigate the matter.

Despite their protestations that their equipment is the best available, the claims of the manufacturers of electronic voting systems fall far short of those claims. The sad fact is that someone placing a bet at the sleaziest ganbling hell in Vegas has far greater protections and regulatory mechanisms in place than any voter in America. Don't we deserve better?

Iraq and Al Qaeda...Conflation and Fabrication

We will make no distinction between the terrorists who committed these acts and those who harbor them. - George W. Bush, 9/11/2001

Such were Chimpy's words on 9/11, 5 years ago. This doctrine led us to the invasion of Iraq which, given information contained in the Senate Intelligence Committee's Phase II Report, did not qualify for inclusion under this doctrine.

The report indicates that Chimpy and Co attacked Iraq, a nation haveing no operational ties to Al Qaeda, but was ulimately hostile towards Al Qaeda.

Detainee informationfrom high-ranking al-Qa'ida officials and associates suggests there was intense debate within the al Qa'ida leadership in Afghanistan over the risks and benefits of working with Baghdad, and that bin Laden was generally opposed to collaboration. - Phase II Report, pg 65 (emphasis mine)

According to Tariq Aziz, "Saddam only expressed negative sentiments about bin Laden." Aziz told the FBI that "when the Taliban was in power, the Iraq governemnt deliberately avoided opening an embassy in Kabul." Aziz underscored Saddam's distrust of Islamic extremists like bin Laden, stating that when the Iraqi regime started to see evidence that Wahabists had come to Iraq, "The Iraqi regime issued a decree aggressively outlawing Wahabism in Iraq and threatening offenders with execution." - Phase II Report, pg 67

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

As for the Administration claims, lately reinforced by Condi Rice and Dick Cheney, regarding ties between Saddam Hussein and Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, they have been shown to be equally false.

Postwar information indicates that Saddam Hussein attempted, unsuccessfully, to locate and capture al-Zarqawi and that the regime did not have a relationship with, harbor, or turn a blind eye toward Zarqawi. - Phase II Report, pg 109

Prior to the US invasion of Iraq, al-Zarqawi was not member of Al Qaeda, but rather, he and his organization, Ansar al Islam, were part of a loose affiliation with Al Qaeda. And at the time of his death he was becoming a thorn in the side of al Qaeda because of his maverick actions which often interfered with the goals of Al Qaeda leadership.

Conflation and fabrication have been the hallmark of the Bush administration since before the invasion of Iraq. Now that the tide of public sentiment has turned against Bush administration policy in Iraq, they are employing these tools with greater ferocity than ever. They see their grip on power, and the fear they have used to maintain it, slipping and their desperation is obvious. Their speeches over the last week, including including Chimpy's last night, is merely the same old turd they've been trying to polish since the invasion of Iraq. Conflate...Fabricate...Belittle their critics as unAmerican or unpatriotic. Some things never chage, even when they need to.

A step back...

In the 1960's, riots rocked American cities as African-Americans sought the civil rights they had long been denied. As Watts, Detroit, Newark, and after Martin Luther King's assassination, more than 60 other US cities burned as a result of race riots, we stopped and asked a very important question. "Why are they so angry?"

Now this may be seen as justifying actions which were completely out of line and resulted in further suffering and anguish for all involved. The fact is that the participants in these riots did go beyond the pale, but we stopped and asked "Why?" so it wouldn't happen again. As a result, America began to come to grips with its past of slavery and oppression of the descendants of those slaves freed after the Civil War. Landmark civil rights legislation was passed, and much progress has been made. We have had the occaisional setback showing that more has yet to be made. All because we never stopped asking "Why are they so angry?"

Now, let us look to the aftermath of 9/11. In the days of shock following the horror of that tragic day, we asked "Why are they so angry? Why do they hate us so much?" But the voices asking that question fell silent in a few short weeks. We no longer ask these questions to find a way to prevent such a tragedy as 9/11 from occurring again, and it will happen unless we find meaningful answers to them and act upon those answers. Instead, these questions have become nothing more than the rhetorical devices of demagogues to instill fear into our hearts and serve the ends of those same demagogic figures who utter them. They fear to seek the real answers as it will reveal 60 or more years of US and Western policies designed to keep the oil flowing from Middle-Eastern oil fields, regardless of the means used to do so...Regardless of the human toll. From propping up corrupt and repressive regimes to overthrowing legitimately elected regimes and replacing them with corrupt and oppressive puppets. It is only coincidental that these nations are Islamic.

Unwilling to truthfully and honestly find and face the answers to "Why are they so angry?", and "Why do they hate us so?", the Bush administration has only fanned the flames of hatred towards America and the West with its policies. They have helped radicalize a whole new generation of Islamic extremists, still chafing from the yoke of 19th and 20th century colonialism. With its reckless, feckless behavior in the aftermath of 9/11 and the invasion of Iraq, the Bush Administration has squandered the goodwill of the rest of the world towards America on that grim day and given the radicals hiding behind the cloak of their religion all the more reason to hate us. All becaus they were unwilling to seek the answers to two supremely important questions..."Why are they so angry?"..."Why do they hate us so much?".

I shudder to think of the America we would be living in today if we had stopped asking those questions in the 1960's.

ABC's 9/11 "docu-drama"...More drama than documentary

With members of th 9/11 Commission faulting ABC's 9/11 "docu-drama" for its factual errors, ommissions and fabrications, it should be apparent that the production has some serious flaws that need to be corrected.

What is most amusing though, is the eagerness of right-wingers to jump on the "It's Clintons Fault" bandwagon. After all, its the right wingers that have had a total lock on power for the last four years. Not Bill "Goatboy" Clinton or liberals. We are living in a world made by the right-wingers under rules they chose. So why are they so bitter and angry?

Without enemies, real or imagined, the right-wing cannot successfully replace reason with fear. And fear can make people do irrational things, even act against their own best interests. And that is the goal of the right-wing in America. Without enemies, their movement would collapse upon itself and they would begin eating their own. And I think we are beginning to see just that, as more and more people are coming to understand how they have been manipulated by a callous and cynical administration since 9/11. A majority of Americans are no longer accepting at face value the blandishment of Chimpy and Co as they try to conflate Iraq with 9/11.

Yes, there are many who still support Chimpy and Co. But this seems more a result of their initial enthusiam for Bush giving way to the reality of a morally and intellectually bankrupt administration. Rather than face the cognitive dissonance such a reality would cause, they deflect the reality and attempt to ignore it with their continued blind support of Chimpy and Co and increasingly rabid attacks against those who oppose the administration. I almost feel sorry for them...Almost.

Reality Break

Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld...Stuff 'em all in a barrel and roll it down a hill, there'll always be a son-of-a-bitch on top. But I digress.

Earlier this week, the Admninstration rolled out its new fall line of bullshit to try and convince voters that Republicans are the only ones fit to govern. It was difficult to decide which speech was more delusional and divorced from reality though.

Rummy was first at bat, claiming that any who oppose the Administration's policy or, more appropriately...lack thereof...in Iraq were morally and intellectually confused. The implication being that the Bush administration can do no wrong in Iraq or in the effort to contain and cotrol terrorism. Such hubris is a sign of a profound isolation from the reality onm the ground in Iraq and utter denial of the misjudgements, missteps, prevarication and arrogance that led to the invasion of Iraq to begin with.

Darth Cheney was next in the hole, and he did little better. Those 50 million people we supposedly liberated are facing a resurgence of the Taliban and Sharia law in Afghanistan. And Iraqi citizens now have Shi'ite theocrats, with ties to Iran heading up their government. Cheney's claims that Iraq is "...The central front in this war (on terrorism)..." is specious at best. He conveniently left out the fact that the terrorists weren't operating in Iraq until we deposed Saddam, disbanded the Iraqi army and failed to send in enough troops to secure Iraq and its borders.

Last up was Chimpy McPresident, George W. Bush, himself. His "...Bold new agenda..." to undercut terrorism by "...Supporting the forces of freedom in the Middle East..." has hit a little snag called R-E-A-L-I-T-Y. The reality of the matter is that the invasion of Iraq has destabilised the Middle East. We did Iran a HUGE favor by removing the thorn of Saddam from their side. With our troops tied down in the internecine struggle between Shi'a and Sunni in Iraq, Iran has a free hand to exercise its foreign policy strategies. Hezbollah felt emboldened and drew Israel into a short, vicious war which resulted in large numbers of Lebanese civilian casualties. Far from being cowed or defeated, Hezbollah and its leadership are the rock-stars of the region, with America and Israel coming out with black-eyes and further eroded, if that's possible, credibility in the region. And Chimpy had the gall to say that, "Victory in Iraq...Will require more sacrifice.", begging the question of just who will make that sacrifice. Certainly not GOP contributors or those benefitting from his tax cuts.

All three went out of their way to equate the rise of Islamic fundamentalist inspired terrorism with the rise of Hitler and the Nazis in Weimar Germany. Unfortunately, however, it is Chimpy and Co., the Bush administration, which has adopted tactics striaght from Herman Goering's playbook. They are attempting to marginalize and and isolate those who oppose their policies...They brand any who oppose them as unpatriotic and cowardly...They attempt to instill fear of attack into the American populace in order to justify both the war in Iraq and the undermining of the Constitution at home.

None of these men has truly been confronted with the consequnces of their policies. None have seen the killing fields in Iraq first-hand. To my knowledge, none of them have been to a field hospital in the aftermath of an IED attack. Chimpy has paid but the briefest of visits to Walter Reed Army Hospital to see the men and women sacrificed on the altar of his dirty little war. They continue to spout their mindless optimistic slogans about how well the war in Iraq is going.

The sad truth is that the more isolated from the carnage they cause a country's leadership is, the more unfounded optimism replaces reality. And this reality is almost non-existent at the very highest levels of decision making. This break from reality can be seen in the speeches offered up this week by Chimpy and Co. Thus they, and their supporters/apologist/synchophants pose a greater threat to the Republic than any terrorists could ever dream of.

Who'd a thunk it...?

Apparently, Chimpy McPresident and the GOP were eager to make political hay from Joe Leiberman's defeat in the New Hampshire primaries. An MSNBC story reports disagreements over the timing of the arrests, both in Pakistan and in Britain. US officials apparently even went so far as to threaten to render the ringleader, Rashid Rauf and/or pressure Pakistan into arresting him. British authorities wanted him taken into custody "in circumstances where thaere was due process".

Even before the story broke, GOP hacks were spewing the same old, baseless bile about the democrats being soft on terror. After Leiberman's defeat and the arrests, the GOP noise machine went into high gear, making it seem as though Chimpy single-handedly rounded up all the bad guys. And, of course, regurgitating the same wet, steaming piles of BS about the democrats being weak on terrorism.

How many more times, and in how many different ways, does it have to be demonstrated that Chimpy and Co. will do whatever it takes to consolidate their power and undermine the Constitution, even if it compromises American security and puts American lives needlessly at risk? If there is any threat to the Republic it is these unprincipled, amoral bastards, and it is time for them to be shown the door and impeached.

Here is a link to the story:

U.S., U.K. at odds over timing of arrests

George W. Bush, the G-8 and the Middle East

President Bush's performance at the G-8 Summit in St. Petersburg was embarassing, to say the least, if not down right disturbing. From his verbal gaffs to his wholly inappropriate physical contact with German Chancellor Angela Merkel, he confirmed (to the rest of the world at any rate) just what a fool and poltroon he truly is. Why the Republican National Committee and the Republican controlled Congress, not to mention his grassroots supporters continue to tolerate the utter incompetence of both he and his administration is beyond me.

It also revealed a President and administration dangerously out of its depth with regards to the spiraling cycle of violence and chaos between Israel, Hezbollah and Lebanon. Whether this violence is, in part sponsored by Iran in an effort to distract American and world attention from its nuclear program...Hezbollah taking advantage of a US government weakened and distracted by its involvement in Iraq, or some combination thereof is a toss-up. It is certain, however, that it is the broader consequences of the failure of Bush administration foreign policy in general, and US entanglement in Iraq in particular, coming home to roost.

The emperor's new clothes are faded, careworn and motheaten. His bungling, arrogance and ineptitude have become a greater threat to the Republic than any outside influence. The real question is, "When is Congress going to take up its responsibility to hold the President accountable for his actions?"

Bush investigated...

Senator Arlen Specter (R-PA) stated, on Lou Dobbs this evening, that Chimpy McPresident has exceeded his constitutional authority with his use of signing statements.

Chimpy has used signing statements to basically invalidate portions of legislation that come to his desk, after passing both Houses of Congress, which he disagrees with or differs from his interretation of just what constitutes the limits of presidential and executive power.

Senator Specter also went on to say that Chimpy exceeded his authority with these signing statements. The proper course would have been for Chimpy to send the bill back to Congress with an explanation of what would be needed to gain his signature on the bill. Instead, he signed the bill into law with a signing statement outlining what provisions he and his administration would, and would not, abide by. In essence, setting himself and his administration above the law. His use of signing statements directly contravenes Article 1, Section 7 of the Constitution:

Article 1 - The Legislative Branch
Section 7 - Revenue Bills, Legislative Process, Presidential Veto

All bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills.

Every Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a Law, be presented to the President of the United States; If he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his Objections to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the Objections at large on their Journal, and proceed to reconsider it. If after such Reconsideration two thirds of that House shall agree to pass the Bill, it shall be sent, together with the Objections, to the other House, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two thirds of that House, it shall become a Law. But in all such Cases the Votes of both Houses shall be determined by Yeas and Nays, and the Names of the Persons voting for and against the Bill shall be entered on the Journal of each House respectively. If any Bill shall not be returned by the President within ten Days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the Same shall be a Law, in like Manner as if he had signed it, unless the Congress by their Adjournment prevent its Return, in which Case it shall not be a Law.

Every Order, Resolution, or Vote to which the Concurrence of the Senate and House of Representatives may be necessary (except on a question of Adjournment) shall be presented to the President of the United States; and before the Same shall take Effect, shall be approved by him, or being disapproved by him, shall be repassed by two thirds of the Senate and House of Representatives, according to the Rules and Limitations prescribed in the Case of a Bill. - emphasis mine

If you will notice, nowhere does it state that Chimpy can:

"...Declare any portion of legislation he signs invalid if it differs from his interpretation of presidential and executive powers under Article II of the US constitution..." - Jurist, 6/16/06

So much for the rule of law. So much for the Constitution. But as far as Chimpy is concerned the Constitution is "...Nothing but a goddamned piece of paper..." anyways.

G.O.P. Now Embraces War as Issue

A few weeks ago, skittish Republicans were distancing themselves from using the war in Iraq as a political issue. Now, apparently, they are embracing the war with open arms.

I say, "Let them."

Let them embrace the failure to find WMD's, the reason for going to war with Iraq to begin with.

Let them embrace the $320 billion dollar price tag to American tax-payers. After all, Paul Wolfowitz did say that Iraqi oil revenues would cover the costs of the war and reconstruction and former OMB DIrector Mitch Daniels estimated the cost to be in the neighborhood of $50 - $60 billion.

Let them embrace the fact that Iraqi oil production is far below pre-war levels.

Let them embrace the no bid contracts to Haliburton, which was operating at a loss prior to Dick Cheney ascending to Vice-President of the US.

Let them embrace the BILLIONS of tax dollars that disappeared in Iraq under the oversight of Proconsul J. Paul Bremmer.

Let them embrace the attrocities at Abu Ghraib.

Let them embrace the failure to rebuild the infrastructure, which continues to provide water and electricity at below pre-war levels.

Let them embrace the more than 2500 US soldiers who have died in Iraq and the nearly 20000 who have been wounded and maimed.

Let them embrace the continued sectarian violence claiming Iraqi lives on a daily basis.

Gosh, I could just go on and on!

What were they waiting for!?!?

Calling the decision to authorize the raid "profoundly disturbing," Sensenbrenner signaled that he would not be among the lawmakers backing off their criticism of the Bush administration. - CNN.com

Firstly, the warrant to search Rep. WIlliam Jefferson's (D-LA) was, by all accounts legitimate...and had been ignored by the Louisiana representative and his office for some 9 months. Secondly, a search of Rep. Jefferson's home turned up some $90,000 in bribe money he had been videotaped from an FBI informant was found in his freezer. Now, I do believe in presumed innocence, but he's got an awful lot of 'splainin' to do to a jury.

But, that's not what I'm talking about here. What I'm talking about here is Rep. James Sensenbrenner's title for the hearing on the raid on Jefferson's office, that being...

Reckless Justice: Did the Saturday Night Raid of Congress Trample the Constitution?

Why the kerfuffle over this matter, given the Bush Administration's utter disdain for the Constitution since the day after 9/11?

Why didn't Rep. Sensenbrenner voice his outrage over the illegal domsestic spying operations conducted by the Bush White House? Where was the indignation over Bush's use of signing statements to essentialy declare that he is a law unto himself? WHy was he not up in arms when Bush suspended habeas corpus and the right to a speedy trial and so confront one's accusers, all in the name of th "war on terror"? Oddly, he supported these actions. So, what is so special about this incident that has House members, on both sides of the aisle, up in arms over the usupation of the Constitutional separation of powers, about which they have so long remained silent in the face of far greater insults?

Why should Congress, which has turned a blind eye towards the usurpation of the average citizens right by the White House, feel that it is above the law? Does their power and status bring them such priviledge? America is, supposedly, a nation of laws, and no man or woman is above those laws. Perhaps they are merely folowing the lead of President Bush and his Cabinet, who seem to think the law of the land is not for such as they and they may act as they will...when they will, with none to gainsay them.

Such rank hypocrisy cannot go unanswered, and our elected officials should bear in mind that elections are coming up in November. They should not underestimate the power of an angry electorate.

More Half-Baked BS From the Bush White House

It's called "Flip-Flop". In February of 2005, Dubbyuh's budget cut funding for some 9700 Border Patrol officers. In December of 2005, the National Intelligence Reform Act included the requirement to add 10,000 border patrol agents in the five years beginning with 2006. But guess what...? There was funding in the 2006 budget for only 210 new officers.

Face it, Dubbyuh has never taken homeland security seriously. First he fought tooth and nail to prevent the formation of a Department of Homeland Security, and when it was formed, he appointed a bunch of incompetents to run it. He has failed to force the nuclead and petrochem industry to tighten security at nuclear and chemical plants around the country. And US ports are about as secure as a box of Fruit-Loops.

After decades of turning a blind eye to illegal immigrants the only reason they have become and issue at all is that the Republicans are desperate for a wedge issue...You know, like gay marriage, flag burning, abortions...Things of little real import, but are sure to push the buttons of Dubbyuh's right wing-nut supporters. Any concern for the matter will disappear after the election in November.

The effort though seems to have backfired, with the Deliverance wing of the Republican party demanding illegals be treated as felons, and nearly 11 million people deported back to Mexico. Now, they can't even manage to get everyone out of New Orleans, so just how are they going to get every illegal out of the country? I know..! Instead of sending the National Guard to the border, have them do sweeps of every city in the country, and round up the illegals. And while they're at it, have them round up the malcontents and ship them somewhere they won't be heard from again. Yeah...That's the ticket...Good old tried and true police state tactics, that should rally the Dubbyuh's base!

The Scum Also Rises...

Holy shit...! We're at war! Who knew!?!

At least that's the imppression one gets when the emergency appropriations bill for Iraq and Afghanistan comes comes up every quarter. This so Dubbyuh doesn't really appear to be blowing any holes in the budget, and we don't really get to see what's in the spending bill. Instead of just providing funding for Dubbyuh's "war on terruh", which it does, the bill has become a hiding place for significant pork. One instance occurred earlier this week. Trent Lott, (R-MS) and Thad Cochran, (R-MS) added a $700 million item to the bill to move a brand new rail line and replace it with a highway in their home state. They say it's to save the rail line from the next hurricane, but the reality is that it is simply a gimme for the real estate and casino developers trying to get their fingers into the thin Hurricane Katrina relief pie.

Even worse, the utter hypocrisy of the Republicans was revealed this week as well. On a party line vote an amendment, introduced by Rep. Edward Markey, (D-MA), to screen all cargo containers entering the US for radiological threats within 5 years was defeated, citing "faulty technology" and "unrealistic deadlines". But hey, guess what...? Hong Kong screens 100% of the cargo entering its port with scanners made by Science Application International of San Diego...HELLO...a US company. The technology exists, and is apparently reliable enough to be put into service in one of the busiest ports in the world. There might be production bottle-necks which would delay implementation at all US ports, but nothing that would be unralistic.

What is unrealistic is the refusal, on the part of Republicans to even debate the issue on the floor as a full bill, but it's difficult to move when they're in the shipping industrys pants. This technology should've been introduced years ago, but the Republicans are content to let the port operators "police themselves".

Rummy's Follies

"...it's bad for the military, it's bad for civil-military relations, and it's potentially very bad for the country..." - Geneneral Richard B. Meyers, USAF(ret), former Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff

For the full article on Runny's defense, goto:

Rumsfeld Gets Robust Defense From President

Let me tell you what's "...bad for the military...", "...bad for civil-military relations..." and "...potentially very bad for the country...".

A civilian administration which launches an illegal and unjust war of aggression against a sovereign state...Which punishes dissent or contradiction from any source...Which fabricates, from whole cloth, justifications for war and then changes them when they are found to be untrue...Which awards unbid contracts to private corporations with intimate ties to the civilian administration...Which then fails to hold said firms accountable for their actions as they engage in war-profiteering...Which states that it listens to "the generals on the ground" while ignoring their advice in favor of political expediency...Which seeks causus belli with another sovereign nation while its forces are already overstretched and over-taxed...While generals wait until they are safely retired before speaking up, placing their careers before the lives of those entrusted to their command...When junior officers and enlisted personnel are punished for the misdeeds of those at the top of the chain of command who get promoted rather than disciplined...

These are all "...bad for the military...", "...bad for civil-military relations..." and "...potentially very bad for the country...". Until those responsible for these wrongs are held accountable, things will only get worse. But until "We, the People..." wake up and install a new political order in Congress and the White House nothing will change. I only hope it will not be too late when we do awaken.

"The idea of a nuclear strike on Iran is completely nuts..." - Jack Straw, British Foreign Secretary

Yep, just when you thought he couldn't sink any lower, you find out just what an evil, black-hearted, murderous, godless prick he really is.

In a familiar echo of the run up to the war in Iraq, Dubbyuh and his merry band are, publicly at any rate, embracing diplomacy as the means to disuade Iran from devloping nuclear weapons. Behind the scenes though, it's a different story.

According to Seymour Hirsch in an April 8th story, the Administration is already preparing for attacks in Iran. Teams already have boots on the ground in Iran to gather targeting data and work on forging ties with groups oppsed to the Iranian government.

Granted Iran's President, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, is a certifiable nut-case, but so is Kim Jong-Il...And he already has nukes. But there's no oil under North Korea, so it's not a target. Never mind that intelligence estimates tell us Iran is 5 to 10 years away from developing a useable weapon. The Bush administration is already planning to bomb Iran into the stone age, and use nukes to do it. And let's not forget that before Dubbyuh started babbling about an "Axis of Evil" moderates were begining to make gains in Iran. But that moderates quickly faded away as Dubbyuh launched an illegal and unjust war against Iraq. After that, all bets were off, and the radical mullahs began to take the reigns of power once more. So now, we have Iran's current president who is just as foaming-at-the-mouth crazy as Dubbyuh.

Both seem to be under the impression that God is on their side. Both seem to buy into this apocalyptic end-time prophecy foolishness. So what have they got to lose if they drag the rest of the world down with them? They, and their followers, each believe they are guaranteed a place in heaven according to their respective beliefs. SO who's right?...Neither.

Since the Bush Administration, and much of the rest of the country, haven't noticed, the world is very nervous about these two loonies squaring off. It's patently obvious that Dubbyuh and his merry band have given little, if any, thought to the consequences of attacking Iran. It is their belief that a massive bombing campaign will cause the "common folk: in Iran to rise up against their fundamnetalist masters and overthrow the regime. Remember now, these are the same folks who predicted US troops would be welcomed with flowers and the eternal gratitude of the Iraqi people...That military operations in Iraq would be completed within "...six days, six weeks, certainly not six months..."...That Iraq's oil revenues would cover the costs of military operations. Well, we all know how far off the mark those prognostications were. So, how can anyone even begin to trust what these squirrely bastards are saying now? We can't.

Let's look at what would REALLY happpen in the aftermath of an attack on Iran. Firstly, purely in terms of economic caosts, how about oil and $90...$100...more per barrel? The purely economic shock of that would be enough to destabilize economies the world over. And, of course, there is the billions of dollars of US debt held by one of Iran's largest trading partners, China. I find it highly unlikely that China would simply sit still while one of their principle oil supplys was threatened. All CHina would have to do is call in their notes to send the US economy into a tailspin. If the Administration follows through with its plan to use "Bunker Buster" nukes, the human toll would be astronomical in terms of fallout, radiation sickness and civilian deaths. Something the Administration has clearly failed to take into account. Dubbyuh's protestation that the nuclear option was just "wild speculation" rang hollow, screechy and wholly false.

Then there's Israel, which could play the catspaw in any military action against Iran. Regardles of who strikes first, the US or Israel, there will be some 1.2 billion pissed off Muslims looking for revenge. And, unlike Iraq, Iran has the capability to strike back, hard, against US military and economic interests in the region and around the world. Through conventional military and terrorist tactics, they could drag the rest of the region into the fray. Beyond that, Russia and China might feel compelled to step in militarily. Can you say "World War III?"...I knew you could. No matter what happens, the US will be alone in this. Our only real ally in Europe, Britain, is already seriously questioning the sanity of the the Bush Administration in this attempt to repeat the failure of Iraq, as should we all.

And where is Congress in all of this? On vacation...raising money for the next election cycle. And that is where we, the People, need to make our voices heard. Vote anyone out of office who supports these crazy bastards and elect any reasonably sane politician, Republican, Democrat, Libertarian, Communist or Silly. It really doesn't matter at this point, just as long as they're willing to remember that their oath of office requires them to support and defend the Constitution. And they must also remember that their first loyalty and duty lies, not with party nor even the President, but with the Constitution. And if that duty calls them to hold this Administration accountable for its actions, even to the point of impeachment, then they will do so.

To be honest though, I'm not really expecting anything like that. We can consider ourselves lucky if they just provide a check to the neo-imperialists in the Bush White House. There's too much money floating around out there for anyone involved with the current system to make any serious changes. If we want to make any serious changes, we may have to do it ourselves...A new national convention.

How twisted do you have to be to come up with this?

"A real-life description to me would be a rape victim, brutally raped, savaged. The girl was a virgin. She was religious. She planned on saving her virginity until she was married. She was brutalized and raped, sodomized as bad as you can possibly make it, and is impregnated. I mean, that girl, could be so messed up, physically and psychologically, that carrying that child could very well threaten her life." - South Dakota State Senator Bill Napoli

This from Bill Napoli to define just what would constitute an exception to South Dakota's new and repressive anti-abortion law.

1. Not just ANY rape will do...A woman must be brutally raped.

2. The victim must have been a virgin prior to the assault. Once a woman has had sex, she can, apparently, no longer be raped.

3. The victim must be religious. And which religion might that be? If I judge Mr Napoli correctly, it can't be anything other than that "Old time religion".

4. The victim must have been "saving herself for marriage". Will she have to prove this in court?

5. The victim must have been "sodomized as bad as you can possibly make it". Apparently light sodomy just won't make the grade.

6. The victim must have been impregnated. It only stands to reason that one can't have an abortion unless one is pregnant.

Mr. Napoli also stated that in a case of "Simple rape", there should be no thought of ending a resulting pregnancy. Mr. Napoli has yet to define just what he meant by the term "simple rape".

What kind of twisted bastard comes up with stuff like this this? And why is he even claiming to be able to make medical decisions for women he hasn't even met? Lord knows, there are so many incompetent women running around out there that a man has to make thse decisions for them. It's a good thing that incompetent women like Condi Rice, Michelle Malkind, Madelyne Albright and all the women who are MD's and engineers and pilots, and, good heavens!, the female members of South Dakota's legislature have men like Bill Napoli around to make these important decisions for them.

On a more enlightened note, Cecelia Fire Thunder, President of the Oglala Sioux Tribe on South Dakota's Pine Ridge Reservation, is working to establish a Planned Parenthood clinic on the reservation where South Dakota law has zero, zip, nada jurisdiction.

For information on how to support this effort, go HERE.

Above the Law...?

Article 2 - The Executive Branch
Section 2 - Civilian Power over Military, Cabinet, Pardon Power, Appointments

The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to Grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.

He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.

The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session.

Article 2 - The Executive Branch
Section 3 - State of the Union, Convening Congress

He shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he may, on extraordinary Occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in Case of Disagreement between them, with Respect to the Time of Adjournment, he may adjourn them to such Time as he shall think proper; he shall receive Ambassadors and other public Ministers; he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed, and shall Commission all the Officers of the United States.

If you will notice, in these relevant sections of the U.S. Constitution, there is no mention made of the ability of the President or Executive Branch to make laws. That power lies solely with Congress. The interpretation of law lies, not with the President or the Executive Branch, but with the Judicial Branch. The only powers the President or Executive Branch has with respect to laws passed by Congress lies with signing them into law or vetoing them in toto, and the enforcement of said laws.

Yet President Bush, after signing the renewal of the USA PATRIOT Act, issued a signing statement which seems to place the president above the law. Now, signing statements are a tool which has been commonly used for a number of years by presidents to voice their opinions on laws passed by Congress which contain provisions they find disagreeable, but insufficient to justify a veto of the bill. That's all they were used for until Dubbyuh swaggered into the White House.

The signing statement on PATRIOT Act renewal was quietly issued after all the cameras had been turned off...The press corps had been dismissed, and nobody was around to witness this bit of skullduggery. The signing statment, in short, says that Dubbyuh does not feel bound by the notification provisions of the Act which requires that the Executive Branch inform Congress of how the powers outlined in the Act were being used. This information could be witheld at his discretion, citing potential damage to "foreign relations or national security". Notice that "national security" is sucking hind teat to "foreign relations". Dubbyuh goes on to say that, "The executive branch shall construe the provisions . . . that call for furnishing information to entities outside the executive branch . . . in a manner consistent with the president's constitutional authority to supervise the unitary executive branch and to withhold information . . . ".

But, just what is this "unitary executive branch"? Again, looking back to the powers outined for the Executive Branch in Article 2, Sections 2&3, there is no mention of a "unitary executive branch". The root of this doctrine lies in what is known as the "coordinate construction approach", which states that, "...all three branches of the federal government have the power and duty to interpret the Constitution." But the Bush administration takes this notion to its extreme in asserting that this view allows him to actually over-rule or even go around the Legislative and Judicial branches. To quote Jennifer Van Bergen from her article for Findlaw's Writ:

This is a form of presidential rebellion against Congress and the courts, and possibly a violation of President Bush's oath of office, as well.

After all, can it be possible that that oath means that the President must uphold the Constitution only as he construes it - and not as the federal courts do?

And can it be possible that the oath means that the President need not uphold laws he simply doesn't like - even though they were validly passed by Congress and signed into law by him?

In short, the president has declared in this signing statement, and others, that he stands outside the law, and is a law unto himself. And this clearly stands outside the scope of Presidential powers as outlined in Article 2 of the Constitution and, in my uneducated opinion, falls within the realm of high crimes and misdemeanors as outlined in Article 2, Section 4 of the Constitution.

If the President continues to go unchallenged by Congress in this arena, Congress may as well pack their bags and go home, as they will have allowed themselves to slip into irrelevance. Their services will no longer be needed, as the President has usurped the power of Congress to make laws. The Judicial branch may soon be relegated to the same status, as newly appointed Justice Samuel Alito is a long time supporter of just such unlimited presidential power.

This abuse of power by the Bush administration poses an unprecedented threat to the very rule of law withint this nation, and the Constitution upon which these laws rest. Such power gathered into the hands so few people, with no accoutability to speak of, represents a deadly threat to democracy and its institutions in this country.

Other Resources:

The Problem with Presidential Signing Statements: Their Use and Misuse by the Bush Administration - John Dean

Bush shuns Patriot Act requirement - Charlie Savage The Boston Globe

Alito & the Ken Lay Factor - Robert Parry

An Afghan Tale

In Afghanistan, Abdul Rahman, told his wife that he was a Christian. He then told his neighbors that he was a Christian, which brought shame to his household. He then told the police. At that point his future became very uncertain.

He is now standing trial for the "crime" of converting to Christianity. If found guilty, he could be killed. But wait, isn't this Afghanistan which US forces liberated from the grips of the Taliban? Weren't those rabidly fundamentalist Islamicists whipped naked and howling into the wilderness? Doesn't a democratically elected government rule in Afghanistan? Isn't Afghanistan's president a staunch ally of the US, and committed to democracy?

To answer: Yes. Yes, kind of...they're back. Not so much. Kinda, maybe.

US troops broke the Taliban's hold on power in Afghanistan, but only temporarily. They weren't able to finish the job because Junior decided his woody for Saddam took precedence over stabilizing Afghanistan.

After being drinven from power in 2001, the Taliban, and elements of Al Qaeda have been waging a guerilla war against the Afghan government.

As for democracy in Afghanistan, well, it's kinda tenuous. While the Taliban were driven from power, the equally fundamentalist warlords filled the vaccum they left behind. Instead of a budding deomcracy in the countryside, we have a fulminating Islamic republic cleaving to extrist interpretations of sharia law.

As for Hamid Kharzhai, Afghanistan's elected president, he is really little more than the Mayor of Kabul. He has little sway over the warlords and mullahs who control the surrounding countryside.

The upshot of all of this is that an innocent man will likely be killed. And why? Despite noises Dubbyuh made about being "deeply disturbed", no action followed. No high ranking official was dispatced to rattle the cages in Afghanistan and let the powers that be know we won't spend our blood and treasure to prop up an fundamentalist regime.

Of course, had our troops actually been allowed to finish the job properly, and a fraction of the bllions wasted in Iraq been spent rebuilding Afghanistan, this man would not be on trial for his life. Converting to another religion would not be a crime. Real democratic institutions respecting the rights of all of Afghanistan's people might actually be taking root. But Dubbyuh had other things on his mind.

The Son-0f-A-Bitch Knew...!

...That there were no WMD's in Iraq!

Iraqi Official, Paid by C.I.A., Gave Account of Weapons

Yet Bush, and his administration, lied this nation into a war in Iraq. Does this not qualify as a high crime against the Republic? Have they not violated their oaths of office? How many more impeachable offenses will the Bush administration have to commit before Congress does its duty and removes these sorry sons-of-bitches from office?

Having rubber-stamped every misbegotten policy this administration, members of Congress have very nearly relegated themselves to irrelevancy. So, does Bush have to be caught in bed with a live boy or a dead girl before they act? Or would they just turn a blind eye to this, saying "They got what they deserved."? How much longer will Congress ignore the very real threat this Administration poses, not just to this country, but the world as a whole.

Three years...And counting.

Rumsfeld, 2/7/03: "It could last six days, six weeks.
I doubt six months."

Cheney, 3/16/03: "I think it will go relatively quickly, . . . (in) weeks rather than months"

"The administration's top budget official [Mitch Daniels] estimated today that the cost of a war with Iraq could be in the range of $50 billion to $60 billion... Mr. Daniels declined to explain how budget officials had reached the $50 billion to $60 billion range for war costs..." [New York Times, 12/31/02]

“There’s a lot of money to pay for this that doesn’t have to be U.S. taxpayer money, and it starts with the assets of the Iraqi people…and on a rough recollection, the oil revenues of that country could bring between $50 and $100 billion over the course of the next two or three years…We’re dealing with a country that can really finance its own reconstruction, and relatively soon.” - Paul Wolfowitz, 3/27/03

Q: If your analysis is not correct, and we're not treated as liberators, but as conquerors, and the Iraqis begin to resist, particularly in Baghdad, do you think the American people are prepared for a long, costly, and bloody battle with significant American casualties?
Cheney: Well, I don't think it's likely to unfold that way, Tim, because I really do believe that we will be greeted as liberators. [Meet the Press, 3/16/03]

It is now three years into the war in Iraq, not 6 days, 6 weeks or six months.

As it stands now, nearly $350 billion has been appropriated for the war in Iraq, with $400 billion looming.

Some 2,300 US soldiers have been killed with the official tally of wounded exceeding 17.000.

No weapons of mass destruction, causus belli, have been found. The rationale for the war has morphed some 26 times.

On May 1st, 2003, George W. Bush stood on the deck of an aircraft carrier and, standing under a banner proclaiming "Mission Accomplished", stated that major combat operations were completed.

Given the grim truths of Iraq and the unrealistic predictions offered by the Bush administration, can anything else they say about Iraq be trusted?

We, the people, were lied into this war...We have been fed lies in order to justify its continuation. The Administration has consistently failed to provide any sort of strategy for rebuilding Iraq and branded those who question them on this matter as "unpatriotic".

Just his weekend, Dick Cheney defended the pre-war assertions as "realistic", when nothing could be further divorced from reality. If anything, it shows just how divorced from reality the Bush administration is.

Just how many more impeachable offenses is it going to take before the members of this Administration ARE impeached?

An Independent Judiciary?

In The Federalist No. 78, Alexander Hamilton wrote, "...There is no liberty , if the power of judging be not separated from the legislative and executive powers'...Liberty can have nothing to fear from the judiciary alone, but would have everything to fear from its union with either of the other two." In case you weren't paying attention in American History while you were in high school, Alexander Hamilton was one of the framers of the Constitution, and this statement should give a clear indication that the origianl intent of the Founding Fathers was to establish an independent judiciary.

More recently, Woodrow Wilson wrote that government "...keeps its promises, or does not keep them, in its courts. For the individual, therefore...the struggle for constitutional government is a struggle for good laws, indeed, but also for intelligent, independent, and impartial courts."

In a November 7, 2005 speech before the American Academy of Appellate Lawyers, Sandra Day O'Connor took Representative Tom DeLay and Senator John Cornyn to task for their attacks on the independence of the judiciary, stating:

"We have the power to make the president or Congress really, really angry," O'Connor told the lawyers. "In fact, if we do not make them mad some of the time, we probably aren't doing our jobs. Our effectiveness, therefore, relies on the knowledge that we won't be subject to retaliation for our acts."

An independent judiciary is, therefore, essential to maintaining the Rule of Law and the protection of the freedoms established by the Constitution.

Compare these views of the judiciary with those of Representative Tom DeLay(R-TX), Senator John Cornyn(R-TX) and Representative Tom Feeney(R-FL).

Regarding a death penalty case, Mr. DeLay threatened judges in the case with unspecified retribution, particularly citing Justice Anthony Kennedy for his citing of international law in the rendering of his opinion.

Senator Cornyn made an unwarranted connection between recent courtroom violence and "judicial activism" with his comment

"we seem to have run into a spate of courthouse violence recently in the news, whether the perception in some quarters in some occasions where judges are making political decisions, yet are unaccountable to the public, that it it builds up and builds up and builds up until some people engage in violence."

And Tom Feeney seems to believe that judges who make decision based on foreign precedents should be impeached. The late Chief Justice Rehnquist, however, said that "...a judge's judicial acts may not serve as a basis for impeachment."

There are also those who hold that "judicial activism" serves to undermine the "will of the majority". Nothing could be further from the truth. An independent judiciary serves to protect minorities from the tyranny of the majority. When majority will imposes unconstitutional restrictions upon those in a minority, it is the duty of an independent judiciary to step in and strike down those restirctions. Had the Supreme Court not stepped in and ruled as it did in Brown v. Board of Education, the notion of "separate but equal" would have stood unchallenged. The Supreme Court's decision in this case ran contrary to the "will of the majority", and we are better for it today.

And then, we come to this:

Dear Dr. Dobson,

This is just a short note to express my heartfelt thanks to you and the entire staff of Focus on the Family for your help and support in the past few challenging months. I would also greatly appreciate it if you would convey my appreciation to the good people from all parts of the country who wrote to tell me that they were praying for me and for my family during this period.

As I said when I spoke at my formal investiture at the White House last week, the prayers of so many people from around the country were a palpable and powerful force. As long as I serve on the Supreme Court, I will keep in mind the trust that has been placed in me.

I hope that we will have the opportunity to meet personally at some point in the future. In the meantime, my entire family and I hope that you and the Focus on the Family staff know how much we appreciate all that you have done.

Sincerely Yours,
Samuel Alito

(emphasis mine)

The only trust placed in Justice Alito is the trust that he will exercise his power in an impartial manner, rather than according to the dictates of personal or outside interests when rendering his decisions. His letter to James Dobson seems to indicate that this will not be the case. He already feels beholden to outside interests thus his impartiality is suspect, at best.

The attacks by the more authoritarian elements of the Republican Party represent a grave threat to the independence of the judiciary. In their attempts to limit court jurisdiction, appoint only party ideologues to the bench, and threaten the removal of those judges with the temerity to defy the Republican right-wing threaten the very rule of law in this country. This undermining of the rule of law is but the begining of a slide down the slippery slope towards fascism, totalitarianism and the death of the Republic.

The Reigns of Power

In the highly polarized political atmosphere we see across the nation today, it is more important than ever to be certain that the hands holding the reigns of power are the proper hands.

Some would say that it is difficult to discern just who is suitable to take up the responsibilities of government. In actuality, it is a simple thing.

Those unworthy to hold the political power they seek to hold, or already hold, can been seen by their actions...Their words are irrelevant,and are little more than an attempt to hide their actions behind their words. They promote fear and hysteria in order to secure their grip on power. They use what power they have to shroud their actions in secrecy and discourage inquiry into their actions. The world is viewed in terms of overly simplistic black-and-white terms. They seek to displace blame for their actions on others. The thought of accountability for their actions never seems to arise or, if it does, it is but a shadowy movement on the periphery of their consciousness.

These actions are the hallmark of President Bush, his administration and its supporters. We need look no further than the shifting rationales for the invasion of Iraq...The secrecy shrouded meetings haeld by Dick Cheney to set U.S. energy policy...The failure of the White House to co-operate with the 9/11 Comission and the grand jury investigation into the leaking of Valerie Plame's identity as a covert operative...The President's refusal to accept the grim realities on the ground in Iraq...These, and many more instances show just how disconnected from reality this administration is and how poorly they were equiped to take up the reigns of power.

President Bush, his administration and its supporters have consistently failed to accept the responsibility imposed upon them by the power they hold. And that is the key to good governance...The responsible use of power. In their hubris, they have forgotten that they serve the people, not vice-versa. They grasp the reigns of power, not gently, but with a death grip born of the fear of losing all that they have gained. But it is only fitting that they do lose everything, as they have profited at the expense of countless others and sacrificed the lives of too many of our service men and women on the bloody altar of their blind ambition.

These small, petty, narrow-minded, mean-spirited men did not earn the right to hold the reigns of power. Instead, they snuck in, like thieves in the night, and took them. And we are to blame. Freedom requires vigilance, and our vigilance faltered. We slept, and as we slept the reigns of power were taken from our limp hands by these thieves. It is not, however, too late yet to wrest them back. Demand an accounting by you Congressional representatives. Remind them, in no uncertain terms, that their first loyalty lies not with their party, nor even the President. Their first loyalty lies with the Constitution which they swore to uphold and defend when they took their oath of office. Remind them that if they fail to act in the face of an increasingly imperious and imperial presidency, they may as well pack their bags and go home...They will have rendered themselve irrelevant. Remind them too that if they fail to act, they may find themselves packing their bags anyways...Midterm elections are coming up.

A Letter to Senator Mike DeWine

Senator DeWine:

Earlier this week you, and the rest of the Republicans on the Senate Select Intelligence Committee, decided that loyalty to party and President outweigh the Constitution and federal law. By declining to launch an investigation into the clearly illegal and unconstitutional domestic spying program initiated by President Bush you abdicated your responsibility and duty to oversee the actions of the executive branch.

This is but the latest, and most egregious, of Congressional lapses in oversight. If you are willing to simply rubber-stamp the policies of the executive branch, regardless of their legality or constitutionality, you and the rest of Congress may as well pack your bags and go home...You have rendered yourselves irrelevant by your own unconstitutional ceding of congressional authority to an increasingly imperious and ever secretive executive branch. The President can do as he pleases, when he pleases by what amounts to royal fiat. And none will gainsay him.

Why do you think the Founding Fathers insisted on the separation of powers? They knew that when too much power was concentrated in one set of hands, despotism would soon follow. By your actions, you and the rest of the lick-spittles in Congress, are laying the foundation for that despotism. If you continue to abdicate your oversight responsibilites, the Republic will perish with nary a whimper from those whose duty it is to protect it...And the terrorists will have won.

A Letter to Senator Pat Roberts

Senator Roberts:

Yesterday, you shamefully abdicated your oversight responsibilities and rubber-stamped President Bush's illegal and un-Constitutional domestic spying program. If you, and your Republican colleagues, are unwilling to do your duty and reign in these abuses of presidential power, you may as well pack your bags and go home as you are no longer needed. The President is a law unto himself, and being able to do as he wishes, when he wishes, he need worry no longer about interference from a spineless Congress unwilling to do its duty.

When you took your oath of office, you swore to uphold and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic. In shirking your oversight duties, you have foresworn that oath. The Republic is dead...Long live the President.

Cheney’s Got a Gun

(Sung to the Aerosmith tune “Janie’s Got a Gun”)

Dum, dum, dum, dummy what have you done
Dum, dum, dum, it's the sound of your gun
Dum, dum, dum, dummy what have you done
Dum, dum, dum, it's the sound, it's the sound...
Nah, nah, nah, nah, nah, nah....

Cheney's Got A Gun
Cheney's Got A Gun
His whole world's being spun
Look at those news crawls run
Oh what did he do
Where’d the press go to

Cheney declined to be tested
Was there enough oxygen gettin to his brain
But Harry, he wasn’t even runnin’
Now that Cheney's Got A Gun
He ain't never gonna be the same

Cheney's Got A Gun
Cheney's Got A Gun
His dogs, they knew to run
But Harry thought it was all just fun
Now he knows that it ain’t true
What did the dummy do

He thought it was a quail
”Oh shit!” his friends did wail
The sneer remained in place
Until Harry took it in the face
His pants now bear the stain

Stonewall, stonewall the press
Damn, damn, damn, damn, damn

Stonewall, stonewall the press
Damn, damn, damn, damn, damn
Stonewall, stonewall the press

Cheney's Got A Gun
Cheney's Got A Gun
His dogs, they knew to run
But Harry thought it was all just fun
Now he knows that it ain’t true
And Cheney, he’s turnin’ blue.

Did they have drinks that went down easy
Or was he just a little queasy
Cause his ticker, it just ain’t right
That pacemaker is just a fright
He ain't never gonna take the blame

Stonewall, stonewall the press
Damn, damn, damn, damn, damn
Stonewall, stonewall the press
Damn, damn, damn, damn, damn
Stonewall, stonewall the press

Cheney's Got A Gun
Cheney's Got A Gun
Cheney's Got A Gun
The story, it’s bein’ spun

Cheney's Got A Gun
Cheney's Got A Gun
His dogs, they knew to run (Dummy, dummy what did you do)
'Cause Cheney's Got A Gun (Yeah and that’s a fright)
Cheney's Got A Gun (That vein in his temple throbbin’)
But Harry thought it was all just fun (Now he’s in ICU)
And Cheney, he’s turnin’ blue
The story it’s bein’ spun
Cheney’s got a gun

If You're Innocent...

...Then you don't have anything to hide. Or so goes the argument made by many of those who support Dubbyuh's domestic spying program. So, let's look at a logical extension of this argument.

If they're innocent of any wrong-doing or malfeasence, there is no reason for the Bush administration to withhold information about its response to Hurricane Katrina.

If they're innocent of any wrong-doing, there is no reason for the Bush administration not to turn over the name(s)of the individual(s) responsible for blowing Valerie Plam's cover. And let's not forget that this led to the rolling up of a program to indterdict the transfer of weapons technology...a program vital to national security.

If he is innocent of any wrong-doing, there is no reason for Dick Cheney to withold documents pertaining to his energy policy task force. As it was he fought tooth and nail to keep those documents secret. What's he got to hide if he's done nothing wrong?

If they're innocent of any wrong-doing, why did the Bush administration stonewall the 9-11 Commission? After all, they've nothing to hide...or do they?

If they've done nothing wrong, then the Bush administration will have no difficulty laying out all of the information leading to the decision to go to war with Iraq. But since they seem unwilling to do this, it leaves one wondering what they've got to hide.

If we the people are to be subjected to continuous and ongoing surveillance...If we the people are expected to surrender our right to privacy...Doesn't seem apropriate that our elected leaders and their staff be subjected to the same level of scrutiny? Apparently not. They seem to hold themselves to be above the law and in a nation of laws, this is not just acceptable, it is intolerable.

Just when they thought they could forget about this turd in the punchbowl...

...Up it pops to the surface. The story, in the Feb 9th The New York Times tells the tale of Scooter Libby. Apparently, Scooter rolled on his for boss, Darth Cheney. He stated, under oath and before a grand jury, that he had permission from his "superiors" to leak calssified information in order to build support for Dubbyuh's dirty little war in Iraq. Coincidentaly enough, this was at about the same time he leaked Valerie Plame's name to Bob Novak. But then, there are no coincidences in politics, especially with the buch of vindictive bastards currently occupying the White House.

It requires no imagination at all to discern just who those "superiors" might be. The first one that comes to mind is...could it be?...DICK CHENEY! It simply boggles the mind. And the whole "Plamegate" episode has Turdblossom's fingerprints all over it, which is why he's still under the scrutiny of Patrick Fitzgerald.

With this revelation in Scooter's testimony, the possibility of Dick Vader being hauled into the dock to testify under oath seems very real. Although one simply can't imagine him making it past the couthouse metal detectors what with all of his artificial parts.

With the wheels coming off the Bush administrations cart, I can't help but feel a certain degree of schadefreud at their straights. I also feel a rather strong sense of outrage at a Congress which has failed to hold these sorry-assed rat-bastards accoutable for their crimes. But as Mark Twain said, so many years ago,

It could probably be shown by facts and figures that there is no distinctly native criminal class except Congress.

Some things never change.

Crocodile Tears

After the non-event that was Alberto Gonzalez's testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee, the White House has been doing its best to bury the whole issue. But, like a rotting corpse buried in the basement, it keeps coming back to haunt them.

Heather Wilson (R-NM), issued a statement today expressing her reservations and concerns regarding the legality of Dubbyuh's domestic spying program. SHe also stated that it was high time for the Administration to fully brief House and Senate intelligence committees on the program.

Juxtapose this with Dick Vader's...er...Cheney's grotesque mockery of the Constitution insistence on unlimited presidential power on "The News Hour with Jim Leher". Here, Cheney essentially dismissed the whole of Congress as being, not only irrelevant, but also as a threat to national security. This being the case then, members of Congress should simply pack their bags and go home. Our Maximum Presidente will see to everything.

Given that the Bush administration hasn't much credibility, on the streets or anywhere else for that matter, we should take with a grain of salt any statements made by its members regarding the honourable intentions behind the domestic spying program. Lacking any outside oversight, of any kind, the insistence by Alberto Gonzalez, and others, that the intercepts are "narrowly targeted" is utterly meaningless.

Couple that with the flimsy grasp that Administration spokes-persons have on the Constitution and they have even shakier grounds on which to build their house of cards. In his January 23rd appearance before the National Press Club, General Michael Hayden (deputy director of National Intelligence with the Office of National Intelligence) displayed a remarkable degree of ignorance regarding Fourth Amendment protections. The Fourth Amendment clearly states:

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

General Hayden stated:

"...it is a reasonableness standard in the Fourth Amendment. And so what you've raised to me -- and I'm not a lawyer, and don't want to become one -- what you've raised to me is, in terms of quoting the Fourth Amendment, is an issue of the Constitution. The constitutional standard is "reasonable." And we believe -- I am convinced that we are lawful because what it is we're doing is reasonable."

Ahhh well, The Constitution is just a "...goddamned piece of paper..." anyways.

It seems to me, though, that the concerns raised by some Republican lawmakers ring hollow. Senator Arlen Specter (R-PA), among others, has often voiced his concern over Dubbyuh's domestic spying program. Yet at Monday's hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee he voted, along with the rest of the Republicans on the committee, to allow Alberto Gonzalez to give his testimony without being sworn in. Were they really that afraid AG Gonzalez would perjure himself? It seems so. After all, he lied at his confirmation hearing about the "hypothetical" issue of illegal domestic spying by the president.

Indeed, the concerns of some Republican lawmakers regarding this matter are simply window dressing. They have forgotten that their first duty lies, not with their party or even the president. Their first duty lies with the Constituion, which their oath of office require they uphold "...against all enemies, both foreign and domestic...". They weep copious crocodile tears as they rend the Constitution to shreds.

If not now, when...?

While it may seem to be ancient history and a moot point at this time, new information regarding the Bush Administration's run up to the war in Iraq has been reported in Britain's "The Guardian".

A newly released memo regarding a meeting between George Bush and Tony Blair on January 31st, 2003 clearly indicates that Bush intended to invade Iraq regardless of whether or not there was a second UN vote on the matter or failure of weapons inspectors to find any WMD's. In short, the invasion of Iraq was a fait accompli.It was a done deal, and the US was going to forge ahead with this ill-concieved and illegal war of aggression. And this with the full support of Blair, regardless of the illegalities involved.

This is relevant now in that Bush is asking for another $120 BILLION to fund the war in Iraq, bringing the total spent there to more than $350 Billion. Despite administration claims to the contrary, there is no end in sight.

With social safety-net programs being cut to the point of bankrupting them...With an ongoing program of fiscally disasterous tax-cuts benefitting only the wealthiest of Americans...With ongoing borrowing from foreign banks, especially China...it seems our greatest enemy lies, not beyond our borders, but within them. And that enemy sits within the White House. Our national security is now at risk as it has never been before. All that our foreign creditors need do is refuse to buy any more US debt and the US economy will come tumbling down like the house of cards it has become under this administration.

Had a foreign figure done this he would be considered a threat to our nation and hunted down. Had any other US citizen done this they would be branded a traitor and be hanged. But now that the Republicans control all three branches of government can we expect that the architects of this disaster within the Bush Administration will be held accountable? All current evidence says they will not. This Republican controlled Congress has so consistently failed in its oversight duties that there will be no accounting until they are replaced. And if they they continue to fail in theier oversight duties, then Congress may as well pack their bags and return home for they will have reduced themselves to irrelevancy. The President can do as he chooses whenever he chooses and there are none to gainsay him. The Republic will have died with nary a whimper from those whose duty it was to protect it from an increasingly imperious and imperial Presidency.

With all that is coming to light regarding the moral bankruptcy and utter and absolute corrution of this administration, if Congress will not act now to hold its members accountable for their actions, when will they?

It is time...Long past time...

...For Congress to act.

On December 17th, 2005 President George W. Bush, in a nationally televised address, confessed to high crimes and misdemeanors by authorizing the NSA to begin domestic spying operations against US citizens without a warrant.

Contrary to the Administration's protests, there is no mention of any such authority contained within S.J.RES.23 of September 14th 2001. Contrary to the Administration's protests, they had all of the information in hand prior to 9/11...They simply chose to ignore it. Remember the August 6th, 2001 PDB entitled "Bin Laden Determined to Strike Inside the U.S."? The pieces of the puzzle were all in hand, bureaucratic incompetence and indifference kept them from being assembled. There was no lack of information.

President Bush has wilfully ridden roughshod over the Constitution he has sworn to uphold and defend against all enemies, foreign and domestic. He has done violence to the letter and the spirit of the law. And he continues, unrepentantly, to do so. He had all of the legal authority he required to conduct domestic surveillance under FISA, yet that was not enough. He ignored the FISA court, which has only declined four warrants since its inception, and declared himself and his administration to be above the law and could do as he, and they, see fit in pursuit of an unending "war against terrorism". These tactics are not those of the leader of the oldest extant democracy in the world, they are the actions of a despot.

It is now incumbent members of the House and Senate to remember that their first loyalty is, not to their party, nor even to the President. Their first loyalty is to the Constitution which they have all sworn to uphold against all enemies, both foreign and domestic. It is, therefore, incumbent upon all Representatives in the House, Republican and Democrat, to introduce a Resolution of Inquiry in response to the gross abuse of power the President's domestic spying program represents. It is then incubent upon Republican and Democratic members of the Senate to act upon this resolution of inquiry and begin impeachment proceedings against George W. Bush, et al. Congress has utterly failed in its oversight capacity to this point. If they are not willing to do their duty in this matter, they may as well pack up and go home as Congress has no further use in the face of an increasingly imperious presidency.The President will have become the law unto himself, and the Consttitution will be little more than a "...goddamned piece of paper...". The Republic and its dream will die, and Congress will have stood quietly by as it happened...even has they held the power to stop it.