Bush Social Security Plan Would Cut Future Benefits
By Jim VandeHei and Michael A. Fletcher
Washington Post Staff Writers
Friday, April 29, 2005; A01
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/04/28/AR2005042801044.html
...Despite opposition from Democrats and a lukewarm response from the public, he intensified his push for private accounts financed by a portion of a worker's payroll taxes. To pacify those worried about the risk associated with investment, the president, for the first time, said one of the investment options should be no-risk Treasury bonds. ...
Now would those be the same bonds that the president bush has called "worthless IOU's?"
Friday, April 29, 2005
Thursday, April 28, 2005
Bush Press Conference
Just a quick post before the Anointed One and Source of All Wisdom, the president bush, gets up to spew his enlightenment on us mere mortals.
Here’s the stock market as it stood at closing on April 22, 2005.
How’d you like to retire on these numbers?
Here’s the stock market as it stood at closing on April 22, 2005.
How’d you like to retire on these numbers?
Wednesday, April 27, 2005
A Fine Christian Nation
Deepening the Religious Divide
Republicans think they can put right-wing religion above the rule of law. That might be their biggest mistake.
By Robert B. Reich
Issue Date: 05.06.05
American Prospect
In the religious war now being waged by the Republican Party, battles are designed not to be won but to mobilize troops for larger battles to come. The ultimate goal is not to dismantle the wall between church and state, although this would be a byproduct. It is to bring the majority of Americans who consider themselves religious into the Republican Party, thereby securing the GOP’s dominance for generations to come.
[…]
Amazingly, the republicans and their allies are shamelessly pandering to the extremist-christians of this country by portraying themselves as Christian themselves. And everybody’s buying it. Using any tactic they can dream up in their rovian nightmares, They have brought the country to the edge of the abyss of theocracy, and despotism.
A little recap, perhaps, on some of the actions of these ‘christians’. We bombed the snot out of Afghanistan to overthrow the Taliban. A brutal theocracy. Murdering in the meantime uncounted thousands of Afghans. Leaving that ruined country behind, we moved onto Iraq, another defenseless country, to depose a despot.
In the course of destroying Iraq, we murdered over 100,000 Iraqis. Our DU munitions have poisoned the bodies of the Iraqis, our own military and allies, and poisoned forever, the environment of Iraq.
So, here’s my question. Where the fuck, anywhere, did they find the justification for all that in the teachings of Jesus Christ?
I hear a lot of quoting of the Old Testament by these ‘christians’, but not one by the Christ they profess to follow. Am I the only one who’s noticed this? It sure hasn’t been remarked on by the Consolidated Corporate Media of America (CCMA), that continues to spread the lie.
Neither of these groups, the corporatistas in power, and their extremist ‘christian’ allies are anywhere near being Christian. If we are the Christian nation they cravenly proclaim, than we should be rising up in righteous anger, and throwing them out.
Both groups think they are using the other to reach their goal. That goal seems to be a despotic theocracy with aristocrats ruling, and the common people obeying. Oh, and paying to support the aristocratic lifestyle. How else to explain the ruinous bush tax cuts to benefit the rich; the destruction of the unbelievers; the destruction of the social safety nets, and the destruction of the environment? The corporatistas worship only the dollar. The ‘christians’ worship only the twisted interpretation they put on the words in a book. We could go on. The list is endless. How are they different from the Taliban? How are they different from Saddam Hussein? How different are they from Adolph Hitler?
Are we so cowed by these soulless people that we will allow them to do that to our children and grandchildren? Or are we so consumed by the fear they’ve whipped up, that we will grasp at any “man on horseback” that comes riding up to save us?
A fine ‘christian’ nation indeed.
Republicans think they can put right-wing religion above the rule of law. That might be their biggest mistake.
By Robert B. Reich
Issue Date: 05.06.05
American Prospect
In the religious war now being waged by the Republican Party, battles are designed not to be won but to mobilize troops for larger battles to come. The ultimate goal is not to dismantle the wall between church and state, although this would be a byproduct. It is to bring the majority of Americans who consider themselves religious into the Republican Party, thereby securing the GOP’s dominance for generations to come.
[…]
A Fine Christian Nation
Sex Trumps Torture and Murder
DAVE LINDORFF, CounterPunch
http://www.counterpunch.org/lindorff04262005.html
[…]
we don't see nearly the public interest in this scandal, don't see nearly the media coverage, and even when, as happened this week, the top generals who oversaw the whole thing, and who helped try to cover it up, are exonerated by the government, there is little public outcry, as there was when the Roman Catholic Church tried to exonerate the bishops who covered up the sex abuse scandals in their dioceses.
The sex abuse in the Catholic Church, while outrageous, was the result of human frailty. No one organized it. No one defends it.
Compare that with American torture of captured enemy fighters and suspected terrorists. It was clearly organized: there are memos all over the place, from the White House to the Pentagon to the CIA to senior commanders' offices in the field, authorizing, encouraging and even prescribing specific types of torture. It was conducted with the knowledge of senior officials, military and civilian. And once the horrors of the torture program were revealed, it was actually defended, not just on the street and in the media, but in the halls of government.
What a fine Christian nation we have become!
[…]
They Were Young Once, and Fit
http://207.44.245.159/article8646.htm Information Clearing House
By Sheila Samples
[…]
They're coming after our children -- sweeping them all up -- bullying them at schools, stalking them, offering them big bucks to join the military. And there's no one to stop them. Servile Americans, even those who can still see, feel helpless. When faced with the decision to stand up and speak up, or give up their children, they are bombarded from all sides with strident demands for patriotism so, like their counterparts of empirical Rome, Americans await their fate -- their children's fate -- in silent despair.
[…]
Amazingly, the republicans and their allies are shamelessly pandering to the extremist-christians of this country by portraying themselves as Christian themselves. And everybody’s buying it. Using any tactic they can dream up in their rovian nightmares, They have brought the country to the edge of the abyss of theocracy, and despotism.
A little recap, perhaps, on some of the actions of these ‘christians’. We bombed the snot out of Afghanistan to overthrow the Taliban. A brutal theocracy. Murdering in the meantime uncounted thousands of Afghans. Leaving that ruined country behind, we moved onto Iraq, another defenseless country, to depose a despot.
In the course of destroying Iraq, we murdered over 100,000 Iraqis. Our DU munitions have poisoned the bodies of the Iraqis, our own military and allies, and poisoned forever, the environment of Iraq.
So, here’s my question. Where the fuck, anywhere, did they find the justification for all that in the teachings of Jesus Christ?
I hear a lot of quoting of the Old Testament by these ‘christians’, but not one by the Christ they profess to follow. Am I the only one who’s noticed this? It sure hasn’t been remarked on by the Consolidated Corporate Media of America (CCMA), that continues to spread the lie.
Neither of these groups, the corporatistas in power, and their extremist ‘christian’ allies are anywhere near being Christian. If we are the Christian nation they cravenly proclaim, than we should be rising up in righteous anger, and throwing them out.
Both groups think they are using the other to reach their goal. That goal seems to be a despotic theocracy with aristocrats ruling, and the common people obeying. Oh, and paying to support the aristocratic lifestyle. How else to explain the ruinous bush tax cuts to benefit the rich; the destruction of the unbelievers; the destruction of the social safety nets, and the destruction of the environment? The corporatistas worship only the dollar. The ‘christians’ worship only the twisted interpretation they put on the words in a book. We could go on. The list is endless. How are they different from the Taliban? How are they different from Saddam Hussein? How different are they from Adolph Hitler?
Are we so cowed by these soulless people that we will allow them to do that to our children and grandchildren? Or are we so consumed by the fear they’ve whipped up, that we will grasp at any “man on horseback” that comes riding up to save us?
A fine ‘christian’ nation indeed.
Friday, April 22, 2005
a sub-total of costs
American Progress
IRAQ $300,000,000,000.00
We'd call it buyer's remorse, but "remorse" doesn't quite capture the stunning tragedy of the moment. Following yesterday's Senate approval of the latest war supplemental, American taxpayers will soon have paid three hundred billion dollars – that's $300,000,000,000.00 – to help finance the most disastrous foreign policy decision of our generation. You paid. Your co-workers paid. Elderly couples, struggling single parents, college kids, middle-class families – we all paid....
1744 Coalition deaths, 1567 of them American
11888 US wounded in action
and over 100,000 Iraqi's killed
IRAQ $300,000,000,000.00
We'd call it buyer's remorse, but "remorse" doesn't quite capture the stunning tragedy of the moment. Following yesterday's Senate approval of the latest war supplemental, American taxpayers will soon have paid three hundred billion dollars – that's $300,000,000,000.00 – to help finance the most disastrous foreign policy decision of our generation. You paid. Your co-workers paid. Elderly couples, struggling single parents, college kids, middle-class families – we all paid....
1744 Coalition deaths, 1567 of them American
11888 US wounded in action
and over 100,000 Iraqi's killed
Thursday, April 21, 2005
georgie says so
President Dedicates Abraham Lincoln Presidential Library and Museum
Springfield, Illinois
For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
April 19, 2005
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/04/20050419-5.html
11:59 A.M. CDT
Our interests are served when former enemies become democratic partners -- because free governments do not support terror or seek to conquer their neighbors. Our interests are served by the spread of democratic societies -- because free societies reward the hopes of their citizens, instead of feeding the hatreds that lead to violence….
Well, I guess it’s official. Especially among those who worship the president bush, and believe only the truth comes out of his mouth. There it is, right in his speech. America is no longer a free, democratic society. Gotta be true, georgie says so.
Flying a plane into a building full of people is terrorism. Dropping a bomb from an airplane into a building full of people is terrorism. No difference. We could ask the people affected, but they’re all dead. No matter which way you look at it, both groups are dead. And neither group deserved that fate.
In October of 2004, The Lancet, a medical journal, published the results of a study into civilian deaths in Iraq:
Designed and conducted by researchers at Johns Hopkins University, Columbia University and the Al-Mustansiriya University in Baghdad, the study is being published Thursday on the Web site of The Lancet medical journal.
The survey indicated violence accounted for most of the extra deaths seen since the invasion, and airstrikes from coalition forces caused most of the violent deaths, the researchers wrote in the British-based journal.
"Most individuals reportedly killed by coalition forces were women and children," they said.
Can anyone look into their hearts, and honestly say this is not terrorism? You’d have to ask the families of those people. I don’t think that they’d say, “Don’t worry. It’s ok. We know America is good.”
On March 20, Iraq time, the US invaded Iraq. Can anyone honestly say this was not an attempt to conquer our neighbors?
The president bush, with his obscene tax cuts, and endless war, has plunged the nation into a debt that will leave future generations with a burden they will never be able to repay. Dashing the hopes of future generations. And any honest person would say that the republicans and their allies are certainly feeding the hatreds that breed violence. Anybody that doesn’t believe in their brand of idolatry, they set out to destroy.
Whatever decent Republicans there may have once been, by their silence and acquiescence to the president’s dictatorial administration, they have lumped themselves with the republicans, and those democrats who have cravenly allied themselves with them by their silence and votes. A treasonous, corrupt bunch of thugs.
So, there you have it, right from the lips of the Anointed One and Defender of the Faithful, the president bush.
America is no longer free.
a thank you to the Rude Pundit.
Springfield, Illinois
For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
April 19, 2005
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/04/20050419-5.html
11:59 A.M. CDT
Our interests are served when former enemies become democratic partners -- because free governments do not support terror or seek to conquer their neighbors. Our interests are served by the spread of democratic societies -- because free societies reward the hopes of their citizens, instead of feeding the hatreds that lead to violence….
Well, I guess it’s official. Especially among those who worship the president bush, and believe only the truth comes out of his mouth. There it is, right in his speech. America is no longer a free, democratic society. Gotta be true, georgie says so.
Flying a plane into a building full of people is terrorism. Dropping a bomb from an airplane into a building full of people is terrorism. No difference. We could ask the people affected, but they’re all dead. No matter which way you look at it, both groups are dead. And neither group deserved that fate.
In October of 2004, The Lancet, a medical journal, published the results of a study into civilian deaths in Iraq:
Designed and conducted by researchers at Johns Hopkins University, Columbia University and the Al-Mustansiriya University in Baghdad, the study is being published Thursday on the Web site of The Lancet medical journal.
The survey indicated violence accounted for most of the extra deaths seen since the invasion, and airstrikes from coalition forces caused most of the violent deaths, the researchers wrote in the British-based journal.
"Most individuals reportedly killed by coalition forces were women and children," they said.
Can anyone look into their hearts, and honestly say this is not terrorism? You’d have to ask the families of those people. I don’t think that they’d say, “Don’t worry. It’s ok. We know America is good.”
On March 20, Iraq time, the US invaded Iraq. Can anyone honestly say this was not an attempt to conquer our neighbors?
The president bush, with his obscene tax cuts, and endless war, has plunged the nation into a debt that will leave future generations with a burden they will never be able to repay. Dashing the hopes of future generations. And any honest person would say that the republicans and their allies are certainly feeding the hatreds that breed violence. Anybody that doesn’t believe in their brand of idolatry, they set out to destroy.
Whatever decent Republicans there may have once been, by their silence and acquiescence to the president’s dictatorial administration, they have lumped themselves with the republicans, and those democrats who have cravenly allied themselves with them by their silence and votes. A treasonous, corrupt bunch of thugs.
So, there you have it, right from the lips of the Anointed One and Defender of the Faithful, the president bush.
America is no longer free.
a thank you to the Rude Pundit.
Sunday, April 17, 2005
Cult of the Taliban
There are millions of Christians in the world, and the vast majority of them pattern their lives according to the teachings of Jesus. These are not the Christians I’m talking about. There is a cult that has formed on the fringes of this religion. And this cult has gained power and influence far out of proportion to their numbers.
The american taliban is about one step away from completing their takeover of the US government. The policies of these ‘christians’ would condemn all, believers and non-believers alike, to a life of fear and distrust. How else would a person react, while waiting for the denunciation that will be coming from someone who has a grudge against them. That is the end result whenever any religion gains the ascendancy in the political arena. We’ve had the Inquisition, the Salem Witch Trials, the Stalin show trials, the Taliban in Afghanistan. Throughout history, we see the religious wars that have caused so much death and destruction.
Basing their social contract on their interpretation of selected phrases from the bible, we see the oppression and debasement of women, the oppression of dissenting viewpoints, the elevation of money over people, and the debasement of the unfortunate, they attempt to narrow the thought patterns of people to conform to their narrow old-testament viewpoint. All of it being contrary to the teachings of the Jesus that they say they follow.
These american taliban need an external enemy, be it the devil, communists, Muslims, or liberals, to justify the limits to freedom that they impose on people, believers, and non-believers alike. All fundamentalist religions have this trait. We seem to be able to recognize it in other cultures, but remain blind to it in our own. And so, we allow the takeover of our government.
And now, the ‘enemy’ is the judiciary. Or at least those parts of it that won’t do their bidding. Making a political issue a religious issue, and a religious issue political, is exactly what the framers of the Constitution had in mind when they thoughtfully kept the two separated. Well, that separation has collapsed. We have a fundamentalist ‘christian’ government.
You are how you live and act.
Using this definition, and it’s corollary, it’s not too hard to see that the president bush is not a Christian, no matter what he says, neither is any member of his administration. Not one of their policies or actions has been based on Christian principles. Quite the opposite, in fact.
Not that it makes a difference to me what anybody’s religion/non-religion is, as long as they leave me alone about my beliefs.
The president bush and his ‘christian’ allies and apologists have perverted Christianity. They’ve turned it into an obscene parody of itself. If they want to do that in their private lives and congregations, that’s fine with me. I don’t care.
What DOES bother me is that they’ve brought that obscenity into the public arena, and are using it to drag the country along with them, one way or the other, no matter what. The result is all that matters, not what gets destroyed on the way, and the goal is actually quite anti-Christian.
The treasury has been looted, and the proceeds given to the already rich. The working class has had an inordinate burden placed upon them to support the lifestyles of the corporatista classes, and the political elite. Social safety nets are being destroyed to pay for those lifestyles. Nothing Jesus says condones, those sort of actions.
And Jesus would be ok with that obscene war in Iraq? Yeah, right.
When it comes down to it, the president bush, and his allies, actually hate Jesus. By the time someone finishes reading the New Testament, it’s pretty obvious that Jesus was, well…, socialist. And worse, a liberal. We can look at their speeches and commentary to see how they feel about those kinds of people.
Let’s face it folks. The president bush is a Jesus-hating, anti-Christian.
And what we have with the president bush is a combination of neo-conservatives, fundamentalist taliban, and end-timers. That combination is wreaking destruction and death on the environment, on the constitution, on the social safety nets, anything that doesn’t fit their old-testament/Calvinist mold.
These are seriously dangerous people. They think nothing of dropping bombs on innocent people. The destruction of the environment is of no concern, since the ‘Rapture’ is nigh. And they see nothing immoral in the looting of the treasury, after all, they are the enlightened ones, the chosen by god. Besides being dangerous, they are also insane and delusional.
But there is a darker side. The damage they have done will last for generations.
Who is a Real Christian?
Entry by: Crystal
December 24, 2004
C and R Writing Center
How Christian Is George Bush?
by Robert Kenji FlowersApril 11, 2005
buzzflash.com
In The Name Of The Lord
By David Podvin
April 17, 2005
makethemaccountable.com
Frist Set to Use Religious Stage on Judicial Issue
by David D. Kirkpatrick
April 15, 2005 by
The New York Times
The american taliban is about one step away from completing their takeover of the US government. The policies of these ‘christians’ would condemn all, believers and non-believers alike, to a life of fear and distrust. How else would a person react, while waiting for the denunciation that will be coming from someone who has a grudge against them. That is the end result whenever any religion gains the ascendancy in the political arena. We’ve had the Inquisition, the Salem Witch Trials, the Stalin show trials, the Taliban in Afghanistan. Throughout history, we see the religious wars that have caused so much death and destruction.
Basing their social contract on their interpretation of selected phrases from the bible, we see the oppression and debasement of women, the oppression of dissenting viewpoints, the elevation of money over people, and the debasement of the unfortunate, they attempt to narrow the thought patterns of people to conform to their narrow old-testament viewpoint. All of it being contrary to the teachings of the Jesus that they say they follow.
These american taliban need an external enemy, be it the devil, communists, Muslims, or liberals, to justify the limits to freedom that they impose on people, believers, and non-believers alike. All fundamentalist religions have this trait. We seem to be able to recognize it in other cultures, but remain blind to it in our own. And so, we allow the takeover of our government.
And now, the ‘enemy’ is the judiciary. Or at least those parts of it that won’t do their bidding. Making a political issue a religious issue, and a religious issue political, is exactly what the framers of the Constitution had in mind when they thoughtfully kept the two separated. Well, that separation has collapsed. We have a fundamentalist ‘christian’ government.
You are how you live and act.
Using this definition, and it’s corollary, it’s not too hard to see that the president bush is not a Christian, no matter what he says, neither is any member of his administration. Not one of their policies or actions has been based on Christian principles. Quite the opposite, in fact.
Not that it makes a difference to me what anybody’s religion/non-religion is, as long as they leave me alone about my beliefs.
The president bush and his ‘christian’ allies and apologists have perverted Christianity. They’ve turned it into an obscene parody of itself. If they want to do that in their private lives and congregations, that’s fine with me. I don’t care.
What DOES bother me is that they’ve brought that obscenity into the public arena, and are using it to drag the country along with them, one way or the other, no matter what. The result is all that matters, not what gets destroyed on the way, and the goal is actually quite anti-Christian.
The treasury has been looted, and the proceeds given to the already rich. The working class has had an inordinate burden placed upon them to support the lifestyles of the corporatista classes, and the political elite. Social safety nets are being destroyed to pay for those lifestyles. Nothing Jesus says condones, those sort of actions.
And Jesus would be ok with that obscene war in Iraq? Yeah, right.
When it comes down to it, the president bush, and his allies, actually hate Jesus. By the time someone finishes reading the New Testament, it’s pretty obvious that Jesus was, well…, socialist. And worse, a liberal. We can look at their speeches and commentary to see how they feel about those kinds of people.
Let’s face it folks. The president bush is a Jesus-hating, anti-Christian.
And what we have with the president bush is a combination of neo-conservatives, fundamentalist taliban, and end-timers. That combination is wreaking destruction and death on the environment, on the constitution, on the social safety nets, anything that doesn’t fit their old-testament/Calvinist mold.
These are seriously dangerous people. They think nothing of dropping bombs on innocent people. The destruction of the environment is of no concern, since the ‘Rapture’ is nigh. And they see nothing immoral in the looting of the treasury, after all, they are the enlightened ones, the chosen by god. Besides being dangerous, they are also insane and delusional.
But there is a darker side. The damage they have done will last for generations.
A small reading list
Who is a Real Christian?
Entry by: Crystal
December 24, 2004
C and R Writing Center
How Christian Is George Bush?
by Robert Kenji FlowersApril 11, 2005
buzzflash.com
In The Name Of The Lord
By David Podvin
April 17, 2005
makethemaccountable.com
Frist Set to Use Religious Stage on Judicial Issue
by David D. Kirkpatrick
April 15, 2005 by
The New York Times
Thursday, April 14, 2005
A Contrast
Loudly, With a Big Stick
By DAVID BROOKS
OP-ED COLUMNIST
Published: April 14, 2005 http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/14/opinion/14brooks.html
Disaster, Not Diplomacy
By Richard Cohen
Thursday, April 14, 2005; Page A27 http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A51669-2005Apr13.html
I've posted both of these at the Guerrilla Campaign site together. And my response to Mr Brooks is below.
In the first column, Brooks, rather ineffectually I think, takes the position that bolton would be a good choice for our ambassador to the UN. It seems, though, that it's his disdain for the UN that makes him the right person. Since it seems to match Brooks' disdain.
In the second, Mr Cohen argues that bolton would be a disaster for the people of the US and the world, if he were to be confirmed.
"...But there are things that the United States will want done at the United Nations -- and Bolton is the wrong guy to get them done. After all, once an ambassador is instructed as to a policy or personnel issue, it is up to him or her to implement it. That means constructing the argument, persuading opponents, flattering friends. It means, in short, diplomacy..."
But, you can make up your own minds.
My response to Mr Brooks:
Apr 14, 2005
Mr Brooks,
I’m having trouble figuring out if you were intellectually dishonest, or just intellectually lazy. Either way, your column today, Loudly, With a Big Stick, is wrong. Apparently, you don’t care for the UN either. Let’s just look at these paragraphs;
"… John Bolton is just the guy to explain why this vaporous global-governance notion is a dangerous illusion, and that we Americans, like most other peoples, will never accept it.
We'll never accept it, first, because it is undemocratic. It is impossible to set up legitimate global authorities because there is no global democracy, no sense of common peoplehood and trust. So multilateral organizations can never look like legislatures, with open debate, up or down votes and the losers accepting majority decisions.
Instead, they look like meetings of unelected elites, of technocrats who make decisions in secret and who rely upon intentionally impenetrable language, who settle differences through arcane fudges. Americans, like most peoples, will never surrender even a bit of their national democracy for the sake of multilateral technocracy.
Second, we will never accept global governance because it inevitably devolves into corruption. The panoply of U.N. scandals flows from a single source: the lack of democratic accountability. These supranational organizations exist in their own insular, self-indulgent aerie.
We will never accept global governance, third, because we love our Constitution and will never grant any other law supremacy over it. Like most peoples (Europeans are the exception), we will never allow transnational organizations to overrule our own laws, regulations and precedents. We think our Constitution is superior to the sloppy authority granted to, say, the International Criminal Court…."
I know you’re intelligent, so I guess you just forgot about the World Trade Organization (WTO). You have forgotten that it has the power to overturn any law that will threaten the present or future profits of corporations. One example: the duly elected legislators of California passed, and the duly elected governor signed, a bill requiring the removal of MBTE from gasoline sold in their state. This was decided upon openly, and democratically, when it was found to be polluting the state’s ground water. The WTO court, which holds its proceedings in secret, ruled against the state, and ruled the Canadian company that produces that substance to be reimbursed for the loss of its future profits. The consequence of this is an economic weapon to be used to overturn, or stop the passage of, any law in any state of our country, and any country in the world.
Nobody elected the members of the WTO, and they are unaccountable to any of the world’s peoples. So, "…Instead, they look like meetings of unelected elites, of technocrats who make decisions in secret and who rely upon intentionally impenetrable language …"
Is this the kind of world you’re advocating? If you would rather have a world dictatorship, you could be honest about it, and disclose this fact to your readers.
As for your advocation of Mr Bolton to be the ambassador to the UN, again, you are misguided. The US has never been more universally hated than it is right now. The Bush administration is spending millions in PR campaigns to try to improve our image abroad. What is needed at the UN, more than anywhere else at this time, is a diplomat, not an angry pit bull, and that is a close proximity to Mr Bolton.
You say you don’t like his management style. Sir, I have to tell you that a person’s management style is a direct reflection of the person’s self. I’ve read his writings, and his speeches, and the man is the wrong person to be representing us in front of the world.
You may wish to read Mr Cohen’s column in the Washington Post today, Disaster, Not Diplomacy
, at http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A51669-2005Apr13.html. He makes the case more eloquently than I can.
And to bring your illogic to a full circle; "…But this is certain: We will never be so seduced by vapid pieties about global cooperation that we'll join a system that is both unworkable and undemocratic…."
In case you forgot, we joined the WTO. You could look it up.
Tom Marshall
By DAVID BROOKS
OP-ED COLUMNIST
Published: April 14, 2005 http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/14/opinion/14brooks.html
Disaster, Not Diplomacy
By Richard Cohen
Thursday, April 14, 2005; Page A27 http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A51669-2005Apr13.html
I've posted both of these at the Guerrilla Campaign site together. And my response to Mr Brooks is below.
In the first column, Brooks, rather ineffectually I think, takes the position that bolton would be a good choice for our ambassador to the UN. It seems, though, that it's his disdain for the UN that makes him the right person. Since it seems to match Brooks' disdain.
In the second, Mr Cohen argues that bolton would be a disaster for the people of the US and the world, if he were to be confirmed.
"...But there are things that the United States will want done at the United Nations -- and Bolton is the wrong guy to get them done. After all, once an ambassador is instructed as to a policy or personnel issue, it is up to him or her to implement it. That means constructing the argument, persuading opponents, flattering friends. It means, in short, diplomacy..."
But, you can make up your own minds.
My response to Mr Brooks:
Apr 14, 2005
Mr Brooks,
I’m having trouble figuring out if you were intellectually dishonest, or just intellectually lazy. Either way, your column today, Loudly, With a Big Stick, is wrong. Apparently, you don’t care for the UN either. Let’s just look at these paragraphs;
"… John Bolton is just the guy to explain why this vaporous global-governance notion is a dangerous illusion, and that we Americans, like most other peoples, will never accept it.
We'll never accept it, first, because it is undemocratic. It is impossible to set up legitimate global authorities because there is no global democracy, no sense of common peoplehood and trust. So multilateral organizations can never look like legislatures, with open debate, up or down votes and the losers accepting majority decisions.
Instead, they look like meetings of unelected elites, of technocrats who make decisions in secret and who rely upon intentionally impenetrable language, who settle differences through arcane fudges. Americans, like most peoples, will never surrender even a bit of their national democracy for the sake of multilateral technocracy.
Second, we will never accept global governance because it inevitably devolves into corruption. The panoply of U.N. scandals flows from a single source: the lack of democratic accountability. These supranational organizations exist in their own insular, self-indulgent aerie.
We will never accept global governance, third, because we love our Constitution and will never grant any other law supremacy over it. Like most peoples (Europeans are the exception), we will never allow transnational organizations to overrule our own laws, regulations and precedents. We think our Constitution is superior to the sloppy authority granted to, say, the International Criminal Court…."
I know you’re intelligent, so I guess you just forgot about the World Trade Organization (WTO). You have forgotten that it has the power to overturn any law that will threaten the present or future profits of corporations. One example: the duly elected legislators of California passed, and the duly elected governor signed, a bill requiring the removal of MBTE from gasoline sold in their state. This was decided upon openly, and democratically, when it was found to be polluting the state’s ground water. The WTO court, which holds its proceedings in secret, ruled against the state, and ruled the Canadian company that produces that substance to be reimbursed for the loss of its future profits. The consequence of this is an economic weapon to be used to overturn, or stop the passage of, any law in any state of our country, and any country in the world.
Nobody elected the members of the WTO, and they are unaccountable to any of the world’s peoples. So, "…Instead, they look like meetings of unelected elites, of technocrats who make decisions in secret and who rely upon intentionally impenetrable language …"
Is this the kind of world you’re advocating? If you would rather have a world dictatorship, you could be honest about it, and disclose this fact to your readers.
As for your advocation of Mr Bolton to be the ambassador to the UN, again, you are misguided. The US has never been more universally hated than it is right now. The Bush administration is spending millions in PR campaigns to try to improve our image abroad. What is needed at the UN, more than anywhere else at this time, is a diplomat, not an angry pit bull, and that is a close proximity to Mr Bolton.
You say you don’t like his management style. Sir, I have to tell you that a person’s management style is a direct reflection of the person’s self. I’ve read his writings, and his speeches, and the man is the wrong person to be representing us in front of the world.
You may wish to read Mr Cohen’s column in the Washington Post today, Disaster, Not Diplomacy
, at http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A51669-2005Apr13.html. He makes the case more eloquently than I can.
And to bring your illogic to a full circle; "…But this is certain: We will never be so seduced by vapid pieties about global cooperation that we'll join a system that is both unworkable and undemocratic…."
In case you forgot, we joined the WTO. You could look it up.
Tom Marshall
Tuesday, April 12, 2005
Let Them Eat Bombs
The doubling of child malnutrition in Iraq is baffling
Terry Jones
Tuesday April 12, 2005
Guardian
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1457630,00.html
A report to the UN human rights commission in Geneva has concluded that Iraqi children were actually better off under Saddam Hussein than they are now.
This, of course, comes as a bitter blow for all those of us who, like George Bush and Tony Blair, honestly believe that children thrive best when we drop bombs on them from a great height, destroy their cities and blow up hospitals, schools and power stations.
It now appears that, far from improving the quality of life for Iraqi youngsters, the US-led military assault on Iraq has inexplicably doubled the number of children under five suffering from malnutrition. Under Saddam, about 4% of children under five were going hungry, whereas by the end of last year almost 8% were suffering.
These results are even more disheartening for those of us in the Department of Making Things Better for Children in the Middle East By Military Force, since the previous attempts by Britain and America to improve the lot of Iraqi children also proved disappointing. For example, the policy of applying the most draconian sanctions in living memory totally failed to improve conditions. After they were imposed in 1990, the number of children under five who died increased by a factor of six. By 1995 something like half a million Iraqi children were dead as a result of our efforts to help them.
A year later, Madeleine Albright, then the US ambassador to the United Nations, tried to put a brave face on it. When a TV interviewer remarked that more children had died in Iraq through sanctions than were killed in Hiroshima, Mrs Albright famously replied: "We think the price is worth it."
But clearly George Bush didn't. So he hit on the idea of bombing them instead. And not just bombing, but capturing and torturing their fathers, humiliating their mothers, shooting at them from road blocks - but none of it seems to do any good. Iraqi children simply refuse to be better nourished, healthier and less inclined to die. It is truly baffling.
And this is why we at the department are appealing to you - the general public - for ideas. If you can think of any other military techniques that we have so far failed to apply to the children of Iraq, please let us know as a matter of urgency. We assure you that, under our present leadership, there is no limit to the amount of money we are prepared to invest in a military solution to the problems of Iraqi children.
In the UK there may now be 3.6 million children living below the poverty line, and 12.9 million in the US, with no prospect of either government finding any cash to change that. But surely this is a price worth paying, if it means that George Bush and Tony Blair can make any amount of money available for bombs, shells and bullets to improve the lives of Iraqi kids. You know it makes sense.
·Terry Jones is a film director, actor and Python. He is the author of Terry Jones's War on the War on Terror
www.terry-jones.net
Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2005
The Paris Hilton Tax Cut
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A45305-2005Apr11.html
The same people who insist that critics of Social Security privatization should offer reform proposals of their own are working feverishly to eliminate alternatives that might reduce the need for benefit cuts or payroll tax increases.
I refer to the fact that House Republican leaders have scheduled a vote this week to abolish the estate tax permanently. Under a wacky provision of the 2001 tax cut designed to disguise the law's full cost, Congress voted to make the estate tax go away in 2010, but come back in full force in 2011.
With so many other taxes around, it's hard to understand why this is the one Congress would repeal. It falls, in effect, on the heirs to the wealthiest Americans. Fewer than 1 percent of the people who died in 2004 paid an estate tax, and half the revenue from the tax came from estates valued at $10 million or more....
The same people who insist that critics of Social Security privatization should offer reform proposals of their own are working feverishly to eliminate alternatives that might reduce the need for benefit cuts or payroll tax increases.
I refer to the fact that House Republican leaders have scheduled a vote this week to abolish the estate tax permanently. Under a wacky provision of the 2001 tax cut designed to disguise the law's full cost, Congress voted to make the estate tax go away in 2010, but come back in full force in 2011.
With so many other taxes around, it's hard to understand why this is the one Congress would repeal. It falls, in effect, on the heirs to the wealthiest Americans. Fewer than 1 percent of the people who died in 2004 paid an estate tax, and half the revenue from the tax came from estates valued at $10 million or more....
The president bush made a recent photo-op stop to riffle through the bonds that compose the SocSec trust fund. According to him, they're just a bunch of "worthless IOU's. Of course, the US Constitution says otherwise, but questions of constitutionality never stopped this administration.
The republicans and some democrats continue on their merry tax-cutting ways, looting the treasury and giving the proceeds to the already wealthy. In the process, they are betraying the working classes.
As this editorial points out, questions of benefit cuts and payroll tax increases are being bandied about to shore up SocSec. Raising the amount of income subject to the tax hasn't seemed to cross their minds, nor has stopping the tax give-away to the wealthy.
So, guess who is going to have to put together the monies required to redeem those bonds belonging to SocSec when they come due. For that matter, guess who's going to have to raise the money to redeem those bonds owned by other wealthy individuals, pension funds, central banks of other countries, etc.?
Yep, you guessed it, the working classes. It seems that we have reached a time when the rich elite, and their political puppets, just can't be asked to make any sacrifices to support the country that has allowed them to become wealthy.
The parasitic natures of these people are becoming plain for all to see. The president bush has deluded so many Americans into thinking that those miniscule cuts they receive (if any) are good for them and the country, while hiding the larger fact that his largesse to the wealthy are condemning their children to a future where opportunity is going to be severely limited.
The chickens always come home to roost. The country's debt, exacerbated by the bush tax cuts, and his illegal war in Iraq, is going to have to be repaid someday. And it is apparent that the wealthy aren't going to be asked to reach into their pockets. Nor are the American based corporations.
That really does leave only one group to shoulder that load. With no social safety nets, no affordable health care, no guaranteed pensions, and with their wages steadily eroding, it is going to be the wage earner.
To be blunt, that situation is obscene. Why should the average wage earner be expected to subsidize the lifestyles of the rich and famous? That is what they're being asked to do.
A complete reordering of the priorities of this country is in order. As I've said earler, and many before me, the real wealth of this nation is created by the workers, not the investors. And it is well past time that they begin to enjoy the fruits of their labor, instead of watching it be siphoned off to those who already have more than enough to live a very good life.
see also guerrilla_campaign/newsletter/news050412_StrokeTheRich.html
Monday, April 11, 2005
The Economic Tsunami
The Economic Tsunami: Sooner Than You Think
by Mike Whitney
www.dissidentvoice.org
April 11, 2005
http://www.dissidentvoice.org/Apr05/Whitney0411.htm
“If the world's central bankers accumulate fewer dollars, the result would be an unrelenting American need to borrow in the face of an ever weaker dollar -- a recipe for higher interest rates and higher prices. The economic repercussions could unfold gradually, resulting in a long, slow decline in living standards. Or there could be a quick unraveling, with the hallmarks of an uncontrolled fiscal crisis.”
-- New York Times editorial, 4/2/05
It seems that there are a growing number of people who believe, as I do, that the economic tsunami planned by the Bush administration is probably only months away. In just five short years the national debt has increased by nearly $3 trillion while the dollar has continued its precipitous decline. The dollar has fallen a whopping 38% since Bush took office, due largely to the massive $450 billion per year tax cuts. At the same time, numerous laws have been passed (Patriot Act, Intelligence Reform Bill, Homeland Security Bill, National ID, Passport requirements etc) anticipating the need for greater repression when the economy takes its inevitable nosedive. Regrettably, that nosedive looks to be coming sooner rather than later.
The administration is currently putting as much pressure as possible on OPEC to ratchet up the flow of oil another 1 million barrels per day (well over capacity) to settle down nervous markets and buy time for the planned bombing of Iran in June. Like Fed Chief Alan Greenspan’s artificially low interest rates, the manipulation of oil production is a way of concealing how dire the situation really is. Rising prices at the pump signal an upcoming recession (depression?) so the administration is pulling out all the stops to meet the short-term demand and maintain the illusion that things are still okay. (Bush would rather avoid massive popular unrest until his battle plans for Iran are carried out)
But, of course, things are not okay. The country has been intentionally plundered and will eventually wind up in the hands of its creditors as Bush and his lieutenants planned from the very beginning. Those who don’t believe this should note the methodical way that the deficits have been produced at (around) $450 billion per year; a systematic and orderly siphoning off of the nation’s future. The value of the dollar and the increasing national debt follow exactly the same (deliberate) downward trajectory.
This same Ponzi scheme has been carried out repeatedly by the IMF and World Bank throughout the world; Argentina being the last dramatic illustration. (Argentina’s economic collapse occurred when its trade deficit was running at 4%; right now ours is at an unprecedented 6%.) Bankruptcy is a fairly straightforward way of delivering valuable public assets and resources to collaborative industries, and of annihilating national sovereignty. After a nation is successfully driven to destitution, public policy decisions are made by creditors and not by representatives of the people. (Enter Paul Wolfowitz)
Did Americans really believe they could avoid a similar fate?
If so, they’d better forget about it, because the hammer is about to come down big-time, and the collateral damage will be huge.
The Bush administration is mainly comprised of internationalists. That doesn’t mean that they “hate America,” simply that they are committed to bringing America into line with the “new world order” and an economic regime that has been approved by corporate and financial elites alike. Their patriotism extends no further than the garish tri-colored flag on their lapel. The catastrophe that middle class Americans face is what these elites breezily refer to as “shock therapy”: a sudden jolt, followed by fundamental changes to the system. In the near future we can expect tax reform, fiscal discipline, deregulation, free capital flows, lowered tariffs, reduced public services, and privatization. In other words, a society entirely designed to service the needs of corporations.
There are a number of signs that the economy is close to meltdown-stage. Even with cheap energy, low interest rates and $450 billion in borrowed revenue pumped into the system each year, the economy is still barely treading water. This has a lot to due with the colossal shifting of wealth brought on by the tax cuts. Supply side, trickle down theories have been widely discredited and Bush’s tax cuts have done nothing to stimulate the economy as promised. Now, with oil tilting towards $60 per barrel, the economic landscape is changing quickly, and shock waves are already being felt throughout the country.
The Iraq war has contributed considerably to our current dilemma. The conflict has taken nearly one million barrels of Iraqi oil per day off line (the exact amount that the administration is trying to replace by pressuring OPEC). In other words, the astronomical prices at the pump are the direct result of Bush’s war. The media has failed to report on the negative affects the war has had on oil production, just as they have obscured the incredibly successful insurgent strategy of destroying pipelines. This isn’t a storyline that plays well to the American public, who expected that Iraq would be paying for its own reconstruction by now. Instead, the resistance is striking back at the empire’s Achilles heel (America’s need for massive amounts of cheap oil) and its having a damaging affect on the US economy.
Just as the economy cannot float along with sharp increases in oil prices, so too Bush’s profligate deficits threaten the dollar’s status as the world’s reserve currency. This is much more serious than a simple decline in the value of the dollar. If the major oil producers convert from the dollar to the euro, the American economy will sink almost overnight. If oil is traded in euros then central banks around the world would be compelled to follow and America will be required to pay off its enormous $8 trillion debt. That, of course, would be doomsday for the American economy. But, a recent report indicates that two-thirds of the world’s 65 central banks have already “begun to move from dollars to euros.” The Bush plan to savage the dollar has been telegraphed around the world and, as the New York Times says, “the greenback has nowhere to go but down.” There’s only one thing that the administration can do to ensure that energy dealers keep trading in dollars…control the flow of oil. That means that an attack on Iran is nearly a certainty.
The difficulties facing both the dollar and the economy are not insurmountable. The world has been more than willing to compensate for America’s wasteful spending as long as America shows itself to be a responsible steward of the global economy. However, the administration’s military and economic recklessness suggests that some of the key players on the world stage (particularly Russia, Iran, Venezuela, Germany, France, China, Brazil) are collaborating on an alternate plan, a contingency plan. If Iran is bombed in an unprovoked act of aggression, we will certainly see this plan activated. The most likely scenario would be a quick switch to the euro that would have grave implications for the American economy (Russia has already indicated that it will do this). For Iran, an attack would justify arming disparate terrorist organizations with the weaponry they need to attack American and Israeli interests wherever they may be. In any event, an unprovoked attack will dispel the remaining illusions about Bush’s war against terror and confirm to everyone that we are engaged in a new world war; a conflict for global domination.
Tough Years Ahead
The neoliberal chickens have come home to roost. America has become the latest staging ground for the eccentric economic policies of the Washington Consensus. The towering national debt coupled with the staggering trade deficits have put the nation on a precipice and a seismic shift in the fortunes of middle-class Americans is looking more likely all the time. The New York Times summarized the country’s prospects like this:
“The economic repercussions could unfold gradually, resulting in a long, slow decline in living standards. Or there could be a quick unraveling, with the hallmarks of an uncontrolled fiscal crisis.”
“An uncontrolled fiscal crisis.” America’s future under George Bush.
We are facing years of collective struggle ahead. If there’s a quick fix, I have no idea what it might be.
Mike Whitney lives in Washington state, and can be reached at: fergiewhitney@msn.com.
by Mike Whitney
www.dissidentvoice.org
April 11, 2005
http://www.dissidentvoice.org/Apr05/Whitney0411.htm
“If the world's central bankers accumulate fewer dollars, the result would be an unrelenting American need to borrow in the face of an ever weaker dollar -- a recipe for higher interest rates and higher prices. The economic repercussions could unfold gradually, resulting in a long, slow decline in living standards. Or there could be a quick unraveling, with the hallmarks of an uncontrolled fiscal crisis.”
-- New York Times editorial, 4/2/05
It seems that there are a growing number of people who believe, as I do, that the economic tsunami planned by the Bush administration is probably only months away. In just five short years the national debt has increased by nearly $3 trillion while the dollar has continued its precipitous decline. The dollar has fallen a whopping 38% since Bush took office, due largely to the massive $450 billion per year tax cuts. At the same time, numerous laws have been passed (Patriot Act, Intelligence Reform Bill, Homeland Security Bill, National ID, Passport requirements etc) anticipating the need for greater repression when the economy takes its inevitable nosedive. Regrettably, that nosedive looks to be coming sooner rather than later.
The administration is currently putting as much pressure as possible on OPEC to ratchet up the flow of oil another 1 million barrels per day (well over capacity) to settle down nervous markets and buy time for the planned bombing of Iran in June. Like Fed Chief Alan Greenspan’s artificially low interest rates, the manipulation of oil production is a way of concealing how dire the situation really is. Rising prices at the pump signal an upcoming recession (depression?) so the administration is pulling out all the stops to meet the short-term demand and maintain the illusion that things are still okay. (Bush would rather avoid massive popular unrest until his battle plans for Iran are carried out)
But, of course, things are not okay. The country has been intentionally plundered and will eventually wind up in the hands of its creditors as Bush and his lieutenants planned from the very beginning. Those who don’t believe this should note the methodical way that the deficits have been produced at (around) $450 billion per year; a systematic and orderly siphoning off of the nation’s future. The value of the dollar and the increasing national debt follow exactly the same (deliberate) downward trajectory.
This same Ponzi scheme has been carried out repeatedly by the IMF and World Bank throughout the world; Argentina being the last dramatic illustration. (Argentina’s economic collapse occurred when its trade deficit was running at 4%; right now ours is at an unprecedented 6%.) Bankruptcy is a fairly straightforward way of delivering valuable public assets and resources to collaborative industries, and of annihilating national sovereignty. After a nation is successfully driven to destitution, public policy decisions are made by creditors and not by representatives of the people. (Enter Paul Wolfowitz)
Did Americans really believe they could avoid a similar fate?
If so, they’d better forget about it, because the hammer is about to come down big-time, and the collateral damage will be huge.
The Bush administration is mainly comprised of internationalists. That doesn’t mean that they “hate America,” simply that they are committed to bringing America into line with the “new world order” and an economic regime that has been approved by corporate and financial elites alike. Their patriotism extends no further than the garish tri-colored flag on their lapel. The catastrophe that middle class Americans face is what these elites breezily refer to as “shock therapy”: a sudden jolt, followed by fundamental changes to the system. In the near future we can expect tax reform, fiscal discipline, deregulation, free capital flows, lowered tariffs, reduced public services, and privatization. In other words, a society entirely designed to service the needs of corporations.
There are a number of signs that the economy is close to meltdown-stage. Even with cheap energy, low interest rates and $450 billion in borrowed revenue pumped into the system each year, the economy is still barely treading water. This has a lot to due with the colossal shifting of wealth brought on by the tax cuts. Supply side, trickle down theories have been widely discredited and Bush’s tax cuts have done nothing to stimulate the economy as promised. Now, with oil tilting towards $60 per barrel, the economic landscape is changing quickly, and shock waves are already being felt throughout the country.
The Iraq war has contributed considerably to our current dilemma. The conflict has taken nearly one million barrels of Iraqi oil per day off line (the exact amount that the administration is trying to replace by pressuring OPEC). In other words, the astronomical prices at the pump are the direct result of Bush’s war. The media has failed to report on the negative affects the war has had on oil production, just as they have obscured the incredibly successful insurgent strategy of destroying pipelines. This isn’t a storyline that plays well to the American public, who expected that Iraq would be paying for its own reconstruction by now. Instead, the resistance is striking back at the empire’s Achilles heel (America’s need for massive amounts of cheap oil) and its having a damaging affect on the US economy.
Just as the economy cannot float along with sharp increases in oil prices, so too Bush’s profligate deficits threaten the dollar’s status as the world’s reserve currency. This is much more serious than a simple decline in the value of the dollar. If the major oil producers convert from the dollar to the euro, the American economy will sink almost overnight. If oil is traded in euros then central banks around the world would be compelled to follow and America will be required to pay off its enormous $8 trillion debt. That, of course, would be doomsday for the American economy. But, a recent report indicates that two-thirds of the world’s 65 central banks have already “begun to move from dollars to euros.” The Bush plan to savage the dollar has been telegraphed around the world and, as the New York Times says, “the greenback has nowhere to go but down.” There’s only one thing that the administration can do to ensure that energy dealers keep trading in dollars…control the flow of oil. That means that an attack on Iran is nearly a certainty.
The difficulties facing both the dollar and the economy are not insurmountable. The world has been more than willing to compensate for America’s wasteful spending as long as America shows itself to be a responsible steward of the global economy. However, the administration’s military and economic recklessness suggests that some of the key players on the world stage (particularly Russia, Iran, Venezuela, Germany, France, China, Brazil) are collaborating on an alternate plan, a contingency plan. If Iran is bombed in an unprovoked act of aggression, we will certainly see this plan activated. The most likely scenario would be a quick switch to the euro that would have grave implications for the American economy (Russia has already indicated that it will do this). For Iran, an attack would justify arming disparate terrorist organizations with the weaponry they need to attack American and Israeli interests wherever they may be. In any event, an unprovoked attack will dispel the remaining illusions about Bush’s war against terror and confirm to everyone that we are engaged in a new world war; a conflict for global domination.
Tough Years Ahead
The neoliberal chickens have come home to roost. America has become the latest staging ground for the eccentric economic policies of the Washington Consensus. The towering national debt coupled with the staggering trade deficits have put the nation on a precipice and a seismic shift in the fortunes of middle-class Americans is looking more likely all the time. The New York Times summarized the country’s prospects like this:
“The economic repercussions could unfold gradually, resulting in a long, slow decline in living standards. Or there could be a quick unraveling, with the hallmarks of an uncontrolled fiscal crisis.”
“An uncontrolled fiscal crisis.” America’s future under George Bush.
We are facing years of collective struggle ahead. If there’s a quick fix, I have no idea what it might be.
Mike Whitney lives in Washington state, and can be reached at: fergiewhitney@msn.com.
Friday, April 08, 2005
Advice and Consent
There’s a lot of ink being used, and a lot of talk, over the past few years about the appointment of justices to the federal courts. Or, perhaps, you could say, the refusal of the US Senate to ratify a certain few of the appointments of the president bush.
The Enlightened One and Font of All Wisdom, since he became the president bush, has made a large number of appointments to the federal courts. I think I remember 200+, and I don’t feel like looking up the number right now. Out of those, a handful have been refused the consent of the US Senate. I don’t feel like looking up that number either. You can if you want, but trust me, my numbers are close enough.
By the way, the reason for the large number of vacancies existed because of the large number of appointments by the Clinton administrations that were refused consent of the republican controlled Senate.
So, what all this fuss is about, to put it in perspective, is, at the most, 2% of bush’s appointments. For those who worship money, that’s 2 cents on the dollar. This is what the right-wing whacko bushistas are wanting to destroy the last of any checks on their power, the filibuster, over. This rule of the Senate (a change of the rules require a 2/3’s majority) allows 41 senators to indefinitely continue debate.
A number of senators and pundits declare that the president deserves “an up or down vote” on his appointments. That’s not what the Constitution says. In fact, Article II, Section 2, Clause 2, says “… and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint …”. I don’t see anywhere in the Constitution that says they have to even vote on his appointments if they don’t consent to them.
If the president bush can’t muster 60 votes in the Senate, the number needed to overcome a filibuster, than I would have to say that the Senate does not consent to the appointment before them. And that is the end of it. Or should be. Because what all those pundits are forgetting about is the advice part. I would say that 41 Senators telling the President that they will not consent to the appointment is pretty strong advice to the President that he needs to find another candidate.
It is the arrogance of the president bush that led him to reappoint those candidates who were previously refused. This has led us to the situation in which we find ourselves today. We now have Senators who will say that the filibuster does not apply to judicial appointments. What the hell were they doing in their Civics classes? Those who are old enough can remember their Civics classes in school. Under the rules adopted by the Senate regarding filibusters, they apply to any and all measures brought before the Senate. Period.
If they wish to change the rules, they can round up 2/3’s of the Senate to do so. Anything else would violate their own rules, and would thereby be unconstitutional. Remember that all Senators took an oath to defend the Constitution. To knowingly, and with forethought, violate the Constitution is a violation of their oath of office, and is cause for removal. Again by the Senate’s own rules.
Both parties have used the filibuster to stop both good and bad legislation and appointments. It is this procedure that defends the American people from the tyranny of the majority, and is an important part of the checks and balances I learned in Civics. To remove it, would remove the last vestiges of democracy in this country.
And now, I’d like to say a word about recess appointments. The Constitution does indeed give the President the power to make appointments when the Senate is in recess, but the language of the Constitution “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.”, gives him that power ONLY when the vacancy occurs during the recess, not one that has carried over from when the Senate is in session, and especially not one that the Senate has previously refused consent to.
References:
The New Century Dictionary of the English Language
Copyright, 1946, by
D. Appleton-Century Company
I use this dictionary because it was written when words still meant what they appeared to mean, and most rational people agreed on that meaning.
advice – an opinion recommending a course to be followed
assent – To agree, as to a proposal or a statement, by expressing acquiescence or admitting truth
consent – to give assent, as to a proposal; agree; comply or yield
filibuster – a member of a minority in a legislative assembly who resorts to irregular tactics to prevent the adoption of a measure or procedure favored by the majority (US)
to filibuster – to act as a filibuster
Constitution of the United States
Adopted by convention of States, September 17, 1787;
Ratification completed, June 21, 1788
I use this document because it is, well, the Constitution of the United States.
Article II: The Executive Branch
Section. 2.
Clause 2:
… 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, …
Clause 3:
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 I: The Legislative Branch
Section. 5.
Clause 2:
Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, …
The Enlightened One and Font of All Wisdom, since he became the president bush, has made a large number of appointments to the federal courts. I think I remember 200+, and I don’t feel like looking up the number right now. Out of those, a handful have been refused the consent of the US Senate. I don’t feel like looking up that number either. You can if you want, but trust me, my numbers are close enough.
By the way, the reason for the large number of vacancies existed because of the large number of appointments by the Clinton administrations that were refused consent of the republican controlled Senate.
So, what all this fuss is about, to put it in perspective, is, at the most, 2% of bush’s appointments. For those who worship money, that’s 2 cents on the dollar. This is what the right-wing whacko bushistas are wanting to destroy the last of any checks on their power, the filibuster, over. This rule of the Senate (a change of the rules require a 2/3’s majority) allows 41 senators to indefinitely continue debate.
A number of senators and pundits declare that the president deserves “an up or down vote” on his appointments. That’s not what the Constitution says. In fact, Article II, Section 2, Clause 2, says “… and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint …”. I don’t see anywhere in the Constitution that says they have to even vote on his appointments if they don’t consent to them.
If the president bush can’t muster 60 votes in the Senate, the number needed to overcome a filibuster, than I would have to say that the Senate does not consent to the appointment before them. And that is the end of it. Or should be. Because what all those pundits are forgetting about is the advice part. I would say that 41 Senators telling the President that they will not consent to the appointment is pretty strong advice to the President that he needs to find another candidate.
It is the arrogance of the president bush that led him to reappoint those candidates who were previously refused. This has led us to the situation in which we find ourselves today. We now have Senators who will say that the filibuster does not apply to judicial appointments. What the hell were they doing in their Civics classes? Those who are old enough can remember their Civics classes in school. Under the rules adopted by the Senate regarding filibusters, they apply to any and all measures brought before the Senate. Period.
If they wish to change the rules, they can round up 2/3’s of the Senate to do so. Anything else would violate their own rules, and would thereby be unconstitutional. Remember that all Senators took an oath to defend the Constitution. To knowingly, and with forethought, violate the Constitution is a violation of their oath of office, and is cause for removal. Again by the Senate’s own rules.
Both parties have used the filibuster to stop both good and bad legislation and appointments. It is this procedure that defends the American people from the tyranny of the majority, and is an important part of the checks and balances I learned in Civics. To remove it, would remove the last vestiges of democracy in this country.
And now, I’d like to say a word about recess appointments. The Constitution does indeed give the President the power to make appointments when the Senate is in recess, but the language of the Constitution “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.”, gives him that power ONLY when the vacancy occurs during the recess, not one that has carried over from when the Senate is in session, and especially not one that the Senate has previously refused consent to.
References:
The New Century Dictionary of the English Language
Copyright, 1946, by
D. Appleton-Century Company
I use this dictionary because it was written when words still meant what they appeared to mean, and most rational people agreed on that meaning.
advice – an opinion recommending a course to be followed
assent – To agree, as to a proposal or a statement, by expressing acquiescence or admitting truth
consent – to give assent, as to a proposal; agree; comply or yield
filibuster – a member of a minority in a legislative assembly who resorts to irregular tactics to prevent the adoption of a measure or procedure favored by the majority (US)
to filibuster – to act as a filibuster
Constitution of the United States
Adopted by convention of States, September 17, 1787;
Ratification completed, June 21, 1788
I use this document because it is, well, the Constitution of the United States.
Article II: The Executive Branch
Section. 2.
Clause 2:
… 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, …
Clause 3:
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 I: The Legislative Branch
Section. 5.
Clause 2:
Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, …
Wednesday, April 06, 2005
A Mirror
…Sadly, our society is rapidly beginning to mirror Bush's character - we are devoid of both sympathy and empathy; we have no compassion for the vulnerable nor for the innocent, we refuse to hear the cries of those who are crushed by our greed….
Super Duper George Bush
April 6, 2005
By Sheila Samples
Democratic Underground
Sadly, this is true. I was talking to two serious bush supporters at work yesterday. Intelligent women with families. They really think he has made all the right decisions. When I asked them what they thought about his plan to privatize SocSec. They thought he was right. When I asked them didn't they care what happened to their kids, they told me they weren't worried, they were all set. When I asked them about all the other children, they said they don't care. Their parents should have got things set up like they did.
When the discussion turned to Iraq, and all the children being killed, again it didn't concern them. The quote is "After all, they're just, just…".
My problem is, is that I can't seem to understand how intelligent people, people with kids, can live a life so lacking of empathy.
I've read that the country tends to reflect whoever is president, which seems to be the case. America is becoming sociopathic.
Well, my friends, this is what you get when a society doesn't care.
Dead childen lying in the rubble of their homes. Every time.
Tuesday, April 05, 2005
a perceived lack of accountability
Cornyn theorizes on violence
Democrat calls senator's remarks on judges, accountability 'bizarre'
11:02 PM CDT on Monday, April 4, 2005
By TODD J. GILLMAN / The Dallas Morning News
WASHINGTON – Sen. John Cornyn, speaking on the Senate floor Monday, suggested that violence against judges might stem from frustration over a perceived lack of accountability.
Phil Singer, spokesman for the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, called the remarks "bizarre."
Mr. Cornyn, a Republican and a former Texas Supreme Court justice, appearing before a nearly empty chamber, said: "I don't know if there is a cause-and-effect connection. ...
"I wonder whether there may be some connection between the perception in some quarters, on some occasions, where judges are making political decisions yet are unaccountable to the public, that it builds up and builds up and builds up to the point where some people engage in violence."...
Democrat calls senator's remarks on judges, accountability 'bizarre'
11:02 PM CDT on Monday, April 4, 2005
By TODD J. GILLMAN / The Dallas Morning News
WASHINGTON – Sen. John Cornyn, speaking on the Senate floor Monday, suggested that violence against judges might stem from frustration over a perceived lack of accountability.
Phil Singer, spokesman for the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, called the remarks "bizarre."
Mr. Cornyn, a Republican and a former Texas Supreme Court justice, appearing before a nearly empty chamber, said: "I don't know if there is a cause-and-effect connection. ...
"I wonder whether there may be some connection between the perception in some quarters, on some occasions, where judges are making political decisions yet are unaccountable to the public, that it builds up and builds up and builds up to the point where some people engage in violence."...
Well…this is interesting. Besides the inexcusable threat against judges who he disagrees with (and make no mistake, that’s what it was intended as), cornyn has also given justification for terrorism against the US.
We have overthrown governments, assassinated government leaders, propped up brutal regimes, tortured people, sent them elsewhere to be tortured, and bombed the snot out of people who had no way to defend themselves, most recently, in Iraq.
Does cornyn now think there may be “a cause-and-effect connection” between our unaccountable actions and terrorism against the US? Is that what he’s saying here? Or is he just attempting to incite the whackos to violence against the justice system of the United States? That is treason, you understand, by the definition of treason in the Constitution. And as for rep. delay of Texas, his remarks were, without a doubt, an overt threat against judges who won’t follow his whacko corrupt agenda.
And strangely, I don’t seem to have heard about the president bush rebuke, or disown these comments by his fellow republicans. Is it because he believes the same thing?
When we have elected representatives of the people openly advocating violence against those they disagree with, our country has descended into the tyranny of fanatics.
Saturday, April 02, 2005
Dancing The Intelligence Commission Report
available on-line: “The Commission on the Intelligence Capabilities of the United States Regarding Weapons of Mass Destruction”
Quite a thick report. I would imagine that if you’re going to do a whitewash, you’ll want more than just a couple of pages. The fault, of course, is not entirely the commission’s fault. Why would I call this report a whitewash? As we remember, the president bush didn’t want this report in the first place, and then set it up so that it would exonerate him and his administration:
…our mission is to investigate the reasons why the Intelligence Community’s pre-war assessments were so different from what the Iraq Survey Group found after the war. Second, we were not authorized to investigate how policymakers used the intelligence assessments they received from the Intelligence Community. [page 8]
But, as we can see, the dance begins before we even get to page 50:
…Nor do we fault the Intelligence Community for failing to uncover what few Iraqis knew; according to the Iraq Survey Group only a handful of Saddam Hussein’s closest advisors were aware of some of his decisions to halt work on his nuclear program and to destroy his stocks of chemical and biological weapons. [page 47]
…[Curveball] not the only bad source the Intelligence Community used. Even more indefensibly, information from a source who was already known to be a fabricator found its way into finished pre-war intelligence products, including the October 2002 NIE. [page 48]
Now, read these tidbits of recent history:
… Scott Ritter, the former UN chief weapons inspector, said this week that despite all we've heard about weapons development in Iraq their weapons are largely disarmed and that the much-heralded threat is in fact a "framework of lies."
A Framework of Lies March 22, 2002 www.democraticunderground.com
… The administration has admitted that it has no evidence.
Rep. Anna Eshoo, D-Atherton, recently told reporters that in closed sessions in Sept. 2002, administration officials had been asked several times whether they had evidence of an imminent threat from Hussein against U.S. citizens. “They said ‘no,’ ” she said, “Not ‘no, but’ or ‘maybe,’ but ‘no.’ I was stunned. Not shocked. Not surprised. Stunned.” (cited in San Francisco Chronicle 9-20-2002)
No solid evidence that Iraq is developing weapons of mass destruction or that he would use such weapons if he did.
Scott Ritter, a card-carrying republican who served as a UN chief weapons inspector, courageously stepped forward to refute the administration’s allegations that Saddam Hussein is a threat to the U.S.
When asked if he felt that Saddam Hussein represented a significant threat to the U.S., he replied: “In terms of military threat, absolutely nothing. His military was devastated in 1991 in Operation Desert Storm and hasn't had the ability to reconstitute itself ... In terms of weapons of mass destruction ... we just don't know. We know that we achieved a 90 percent to 95 percent level of disarmament. There's stuff that's unresolved, and until we get weapons inspectors back into Iraq, that will remain a problematical issue ... Diplomatically, politically, Saddam's a little bit of a threat. In terms of real national security threat to the United States, no, none.”
(Cited from Corn 11-30-2001; Paul 12-21-2001; Everest 12-12-2001; Jensen 12-15-2001)
On April 11, he told reporters in Paris, “Iraq does not pose a threat worthy of war. America is marching toward war with Iraq that will have horrific consequences, not only for the United States, but for the entire world. . . . There is nothing left that constitutes either a weapon or a weapons program. So where is the threat?” (cited in AP 3-11-2002)
In his January 28 op-ed piece in the Christian Science Monitor he convincingly argued that much of the so-called evidence comes from a very questionable source - – Ahmad Chalabi of the Iraqi National Congress - whom the UN had stopped using as an informant “once the tenuous nature of his sources and his dubious motivations became clear.” (Ritter 1-28-2002)
In his January 28 op-ed piece in the Christian Science Monitor, he wrote: “The media and government are misrepresenting the facts in order to promote their views.” (Ritter 1-28-2002)
“While we were never able to provide 100 percent certainty regarding the disposition of Iraq's proscribed weaponry, we did ascertain a 90-95 percent level of verified disarmament. This figure takes into account the destruction or dismantling of every major factory associated with prohibited weapons manufacture, all significant items of production equipment, and the majority of the weapons and agent produced by Iraq.”
“With the exception of mustard agent, all chemical agent produced by Iraq prior to 1990 would have degraded within five years (the jury is still out regarding Iraq's VX nerve agent program - while inspectors have accounted for the laboratories, production equipment and most of the agent produced from 1990-91, major discrepancies in the Iraqi accounting preclude any final disposition at this time.)”
“The same holds true for biological agent, which would have been neutralized through natural processes within three years of manufacture. Effective monitoring inspections, fully implemented from 1994-1998 without any significant obstruction from Iraq, never once detected any evidence of retained proscribed activity or effort by Iraq to reconstitute that capability which had been eliminated through inspections.”
“In direct contrast to these findings, the Bush administration provides only speculation, failing to detail any factually based information to bolster its claims concerning Iraq's continued possession of or ongoing efforts to acquire weapons of mass destruction. To date no one has held the Bush administration accountable for its unwillingness - or inability - to provide such evidence.”
2002. Boston Globe.
… In 1999, a committee under the UN Security Council concluded that Iraq’s primary biological weapons facility “had been destroyed and rendered harmless.” (cited in Pilger 4-5-2002)
… Hans von Sponneck, the UN humanitarian coordinator for Iraq from 1998-2000, wrote in 2001, “Iraq today is no longer a military threat to anyone. Intelligence agencies know this. All the conjectures about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq lack evidence.” (cited in Everest 2001; Stop the war against Iraq.org n.d.)
In addition to these, both condi rice and powell stated in 2000 that Hussein had no weapons of mass destruction, and was “contained”. Now I know that the president bush doen’t read much, and is intellectually lazy, but these facts were known well before he started his public push for war with Iraq. Common sense alone says it would have been impossible for Iraq to develop and amass the stores of weapons the bush administration said they had. Said with certainty. However… Iraq did not have the infrastructure required for such an undertaking. And with the brutal sanctions in place, did not have the ability to build it. Saddam built a lot of palaces, but no weapons facilities. Apparently, before the war, millions of common people around the world had that common sense that said bush was lying. And now the commission report wishes us to believe that the professional intelligence analysts at the CIA didn’t.
Of course, we found out later from wolfowitz (the new World Bank honcho) that the administration was determined to invade Iraq, and they settled on the WMD accusations as the only way to sell it to the American public. And sell it they did.
Now, if these claims were shown to be false before they were even made, and common sense would tell us they were false, where did that ‘intelligence information’ that was so flawed come from? A glaring ommission in the commissions report is the Office of Special Plans set op in the pentagon by wolfowitz. The purpose? To cherry pick rumors and unproven allegations fed to them by Chalabi and others, and stovepipe it through to the decision makers, bypassing the usual analysis.
The Truth Leaks Out
by Ruth Rosen
Published on Monday, March 15, 2004 by the San Francisco Chronicle
…Today, we also know why there was a so-called "intelligence failure." Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and company established their own private Pentagon intelligence unit -- the Office of Special Plans -- to seek evidence that confirmed only what they believed. CIA Director George Tenet, for his part, failed to expose the administration's manipulation of intelligence.
In "The New Pentagon Papers," published last week on Salon.com, Karen Kwiatkowski, a retired lieutenant colonel formerly assigned to the Pentagon's Office of Special Plans, writes, "I witnessed neoconservative agenda bearers within OSP usurp measured and carefully considered assessments, and through suppression and distortion of intelligence analysis promulgate what were in fact falsehoods to the Congress." through suppression and distortion of intelligence analysis promulgate what were in fact falsehoods to the Congress."
Empire of Nothing
http://www.motherjones.com
June 2, 2003
… Dan Plesch and Richard Norton-Taylor, defense experts for The Guardian, report on quite another Powell, drawing on a secret transcript of a meeting between his British counterpart and him just before his UN performance. The document has been circulating in NATO diplomatic circles, possibly leaked by diplomats who felt betrayed by post-war WMD developments.
"Jack Straw and his US counterpart, Colin Powell, privately expressed serious doubts about the quality of intelligence on Iraq's banned weapons programme at the very time they were publicly trumpeting it to get UN support for a war on Iraq ... Their deep concerns ... emerged at a private meeting between the two men shortly before a crucial UN security council session on February 5. ...
Mr Powell shared the concern about intelligence assessments, especially those being presented by the Pentagon's office of special plans set up by the US deputy defence secretary, Paul Wolfowitz. ... he told Mr Straw he had come away from the meetings [with US intelligence] 'apprehensive' about what he called, at best, circumstantial evidence highly tilted in favour of assessments drawn from them, rather than any actual raw intelligence. Mr Powell told the foreign secretary he hoped the facts, when they came out, would not 'explode in their faces'." …
Well, I’ve got to say that the facts did indeed ‘explode’, but not in their faces. They exploded in ours. The president bush set up his commission by ensuring that it would not investigate his administration. He knows it could not stand against that scrutiny. No one in the administration has suffered any consequence due to their involvement with this massive crime. And now the blame will be placed on vague ‘intelligence failures’, and on the shortcomings of the intelligence agencies. If we will recall, this is the same ploy used in the 9-11 investigation. Another commission set up by the president bush exonerates him, and faults the FBI and CIA for failing to ‘connect the dots’. And even then, he had pages removed to avoid scrutiny of the relationship of the bush family and the Saudis.
And so, another investigation, another whitewash. Nothing new.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)