I have a friend who regularly sends me stuff that I take strong exception to. He sent me the Captain’s post and then another pro-Bush posting from smalldeadanimals.com. This was my parting shot in the debate which ensued.
Dead rodent woman adopts the same dismissive tone as the Captain. Yeah, its good to be reminded that Scooter is in trouble for possible perjury and not for releasing state secrets but the issue in the public’s mind all has to do with this Administration’s honesty. Even so, perjury is an act of dishonesty and therefore entirely consonant with the public’s loss of faith.
LBJ, who did more to advance Civil Rights than any other President, also foisted the Tonkin Gulf Resolution on the US to justify his war. Lyndon got it passed in Congress based on a flat out lie. Is that in the same league as all the WMD stuff–.Well, the more we hear of the expert’s skepticism about WMD’s and the Administration’s scramble to silence the skeptics, the more Bush seems to be channeling LBJ. Don’t forget, LBJ had worthy motives too except that they didn’t change as much over the course of his war. Johnson was simply protecting the Free World from the advance of Communism.
At least LBJ, who craved adulation, had the humility not to run for reelection after he lost control of his tar baby. Bush only needs approval from God. Apparently God has told the President that lies told in pursuit of a good cause are no big deal — and lies told to cover up lies told in pursuit of a good cause; and the lies told to cover the lies told to cover the lies–.Oops, sorry. I meant the disingenuities.
Oh, and if the war Bush waged stirs up a generation of angry, unemployed, young Moslem men to spend all their waking hours trying to think of ways to kill Americans where ever they can find them —well, you can’t make an omelet without breaking a few eggs.
Obviously the Captain and Dead Rodent woman have views inconsistent with mine. Madly applauding claques hired by theater owners also have different motives from the rest of the audience at mediocre theatricals. George Bush’s Presidency needs a laugh track.
Andrew Sullivan has all the relevant quotes. Among them:
“There’s a lot of leaking in Washington, D.C. It’s a town famous for it. This investigation in finding the truth, it will not only hold someone to account who should not have leaked â€” and this is a serious charge, by the way. We’re talking about a criminal action, but also hopefully will help set a clear signal we expect other leaks to stop, as well. And so I look forward to finding the truth,” – President George W. Bush, October 7, 2003.
Mark Kirkorian’s NPR commentary on immigration is fascinating and unexpected. I read recently that Mexico is one of the world’s richer nations which adds weightÂ to Mr. Kirkorian’s observations. Listen to the audio
The Moderate Voice lists five consequences of Scooter Libby’s fingering President Bush.
- This administration does not just have a credibility problem, it has a credibility catastrophe.
- Bush is now in the “loop” on these allegations. The stories point out that he didn’t violate any law â€” but he can’t talk about how leakers hurt the government if he is actively involved himself in leaking when it suits his political purposes.
- This underscores again the abysmal failure of one-party government where there is effectively no vigorous Congressional oversight for political reasons. Under one party government Congressional CYLYKW (Cover Your Leader’s You-Know-What) has replaced Congressional oversight.
- Expect that if there are more revelations to come out, they will. Under the old modus operendi of journalism, this kind of story would trigger a competition in the media to get more on this angle (the President participated in leaks…so what other ones did he participate in?). The new attention deficit media of the early 21st Century may not pursue it the same way, but it’s unlikely that this will be the last story looking closely at Bush’s role.
- If the Democrats gain control of the House in 2006 it’ll be a whole new ball game. It will not necessarily mean impeachment proceedings (which is the threat some GOPers are using to try and rally their base for the mid-term elections). But there will be the threat of real â€” if even excessive â€” Congressional oversight coupled with political consequences.
Reports from various sources here, here, and here strongly suggest that the Bush Administration is intent on attacking Iran’s nuclear facilities.
“Several experts and former officials interviewed by the Forward pointed to Vice President Dick Cheney as one of the key figures who has concluded that the ongoing diplomatic efforts to bring Iran before the United Nations Security Council and eventually slap the Islamic regime with sanctions will come to naught …”Â
Its easy for Dick to push for another war. He’s the fellow with all the great hiding places.Â
A reader took strenuous issue with my post suggesting that the Founding Fathers did not regard the United States as a “Christian Nation.” Pointing to the many Christian references on our public buildings and tributes to God offered up by our Presidents over the years he challenges this idea as though it were a heresy. His eloquence gives Patrick Henry a run for his money:
“Shall we tear down our public buildings? Shall we melt down the Liberty Bell? Shall we deny our heritage, forsake our history, and profane our honored dead who believed in America’s ideals and followed our founding patriots into the cry “Give me liberty or give me death”, who have delivered to us this nation cemented together in the common belief of the unalienable rights of men granted by the Creator and bought those rights with their blood? I say no. We shall not forget, nor shall we abandon those lofty ideals and that firm reliance on God that has raised us to the wonderful nation that we are.”
This is part of my reply:
“This treaty language written and approved by those very founders is excellent and almost irrefutable evidence that they did not see the United States as a specificially Christian nation. Isn’t that what we would want the people of Iraq to know so that they wouldn’t confuse our intervention with the motivations of the Crusaders?
There is no reason to punish America for reflecting its undeniable Christian heritage by tearing down its public buildings for having God’s name engraved on their walls or smelting the Liberty Bell because it sports a quotation from Leviticus.”
I got an email yesterday from a student at my old alma mater, Mankato State, which was rechristened Minnesota Univeristy, Mankato. I get such emails once a month or so because someone has stumbled onto my website. Jay stumbled onto my site while researching the now hidden monument to the mass hanging of 36 Sioux Indians in Mankato during the Civil War. It was the greatest mass execution in US History and was quite an attraction for the vengeful and the curious after the “Sioux Uprising.”
The monument, (which looks more like a tombstone) was spashed with red paint representingÂ blood in the early 1970’s at the beginning of the American Indian Movement.
Erected at atÂ time whenÂ docile indians were tucked away quietly on their reservations the monument became an embarassment for Mankato in our more enlightened generation. At some point after I left town it was buried byÂ the City of Mankato and has remained hidden like Hitler’s ashes.Â
I had written a column called “Here were hanged”Â a few years ago in response to a letter-to-the-editor complaining that DuluthÂ shouldn’t build a monument to the shameful lynching that took place here in 1921.
I started a post earlier today about how the Roves, Abramofs, Reeds, DeLays etc. have betrayed the earnest Christians who have followed them into the GOP. It wasÂ too a big topic to cover in a bite sized post so I set it aside.Â
I am an agnostic but I’ve attended church regularlyÂ for nearly a quarter century. I just got back from choir practice. Â Socrates, no Christian he, said: “the unexamined life is not worth living.” I agree and attending church has been an important way for me to examine my spiritual life.
It would be a mistake for Democrats to generalize too much about “Christians” simply because they’ve been so ill used by the aformentioned sleaze mongers. Slate has a useful article explaining who the potential allies of the Democrats are on the religious left and how they should be treated.Â
Don’t forgetÂ what Socrates said.
InÂ its April 10th 2006Â story “God and the Founders” Newsweek had this stunningly secularistÂ quote from America’s founding fathers:
In a treaty with the Muslim nation of Tripoli initiated by Washington, completed by John Adams, and ratified by the Senate in 1797, we declared “the Government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion. … “
It is a familiar notion that when the devilÂ makes his appearance he shows up asÂ a handsome, smooth talking, charmer. The liberal magazine “The Nation” uses that image on its front coverÂ to representÂ theÂ influential, and money loving,Â “evangelical” Republican, Ralph Reed.
The story they write is even more damning.Â
I missed a call yesterday from some Republican Fund Raising call center. Since I was gone the solicitor asked my wife “On a scale from one to five how important is it to you that we retain a Republican Congress in 2006?
“Zero!” wasÂ my wife’sÂ reply.
There was a moment of stunned silence on the other end of line followed by an explanation that the caller was just a hired gun and not personally affiliated with the GOP.
I was just listening to Tom DeLay on the News Hour on PBS. He explained that he had to take a bullet for the Republic Party to protect them from rascally liberals like Barbara Streisand and Michael Moore.Â
Well, she is Jewish…….
You should have seen the round of applause DeLay got from his Republic friends. The Republics are deeply grateful that by giving up his Congressional seat the Republics may be able to avoidÂ being furtherÂ tainted by DeLay’s K Street Project or all of DeLay’sÂ staffersÂ who are copping pleas.
* “Republic” Party: I’m trying to honor the Republic Party through imitation. For years Republics have referred to their opposition as the “Democrat Party” so as to be gramatically correct. You see, Republics didn’tÂ want to confuse voters by callingÂ their oppositionÂ the “Democratic” Party.Â They didn’t want toÂ confuse voters by leaving the impression that Democrats were in any way “democratic!”Â Â
The Republics on the other hand are the greatest defenders of the “Pledge of Allegience” against the depredations of thatÂ dangerouslyÂ liberal 9thÂ District Court. That’s because when Americans make the pledge its made toÂ the Republic Party for which the flag stands.
Howdya like them big apples, Babs!
A powerful excerpt from Zinni’s new book that makes it plain that the Bush Administration was a ship of fools when it launched the war in Iraq.
Zinni quotes Eisenhower: “In preparing for battle I have always found that plans are useless, but planning is indispensable.”
Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld was useless but President Bush treated him and continues to treat him as indispensable.
Â My SUV reply didn’t sit well with my Global Cooling coorespondent:
Apparently you referred to me as a skeptic of global warming.Â Change happens.Â The climate has changed.Â Apparently it is changing.Â We humans have evidence of climate change that has occurred.Â However, I suggest that no one knows how the climate is going to change.Â I also suggest that no one knows whether or to what extent human activity is causing climate change.Â Lastly, I suggest that we humans aren’t going to “change our evil ways” (relative to how our activity might affect the climate) unless and until we are on the verge of inconvenience, discomfort, or pain.
I was recently involved in an e-mail exchange with a friend who expressed criticism of especially large and fuel inefficient recreational four-wheel-drive trucks.Â Obviously, such trucks and their consumption of fuel can reasonably be regarded as unnecessary, and I didn’t suggest otherwise.Â However, this friend travels several thousand miles each fall, to hunt pheasants in South Dakota, which, I suggested to him, also involves unnecessary consumption of fuel.Â I got the impression that he was irritated by my argument.Â Regarding the unnecessary consumption ofÂ apparently non-renewable energy, probably almost all of us humans haveÂ an oxÂ that we don’t want gored.Â
No longer a skeptic? Â Indeed, change does happen. Now you are merely skeptical that anyone can predict how the change will proceed or to what extent we humans have contributed to it. Fair enough.
As for me,Â I’m notÂ so fatalistic. You believe that we humans will only change our climate alteringÂ ways whenÂ we are on “the verge of inconvenience, discomfort or pain.” Well, that’s one economic expectation although the fellow who did the most to contribute to this model,Â Adam Smith, also apparently believed that there were some things people should do even if his invisible hand worked against them. In this he was motivated by a religious sense of duty. I’ll bet Smith would have approved of energy conservation.
As for your duck hunting friend there is a word for such people – “hypocrite.”Â Even though I drive a gas stingy little Prius I too like to travel which makes me a hypocrite as well. Here’s my ethical problem. On the one hand I know that travel is good for the economy while at the same time it uses up non renewable energy. To my credit I’m not interested in ignoring this conundrum like a fatalist. Instead I would prefer to find ways to travel while limiting energy consumption.
At the moment I’m listening to NPR’s talk show and, of course, Tom DeLay’s resignation is the topic.
According to Republican pollster Frank Luntz, who had lots of very nice things to say about DeLay’s work ethic, one of the reasons that Delay got so much done was because “…he had guys across the aisles (Democrats) that he could count on to get things done.”
I wonder who Luntz had in mind?
I find myselfÂ wearing the same damn shoes I wore in 1973. I’d protested our involvment in Vietnam in peace marches. My opinion was that we had no idea what we were doing there and that our presence was making things worse. I thought that the “domino theory” (whichÂ warned us that oneÂ nation’sÂ fall to communism would knock othersÂ into the communistÂ orbit) was simple minded. I also thought it was a great insult to the power of democracy and free enterprise.
On the other hand we had madeÂ Vietnam our business and hundreds of thousands of Vietnamese had taken us at our word and cast their lot with us. Our leaving would be their doom.
Few peaceniksÂ paid heed toÂ this embarassing fact during Vietnam and too few pay it heed today in Iraq.
It’s true that peace activists have learned a thing or two since Vietman. In the Seventies a few dimwits thought it was cool to spit on returning troops. Today’s peace activists slogans allÂ seem geared at doing what’s best forÂ our troops by bringing them home.
I don’t know what we can do at this sorry point in Condaleeza and George’s war to save the Iraqies from our elephantine meddling but the peace movement’s silence on this subject leaves me as cold as theÂ exploitation of the war by Turd blossom for partisan advantage.Â
From Andrew Sullivan -Â We should think long and hardÂ before we leaveÂ theseÂ Iraqies behind to deal with the mess we’ve left them. Much credit is owed to the US troops who would rather risk life and limb than let these people down.
One of the legs supporting the Republican Revolution was a proliferation ofÂ think tanks headed by such folks as Grover Norquist. Here’s a lovelyÂ example of how the think tanksÂ could beÂ more motivated by thirty pieces of silver than the public good.