Stop the Bush Presidency! Iraq War Lies, Abu Ghraib, 9/11, Patriot Act, Coke bust, DWI, AWOL
L ast update 9-30-08
Today's Iraq
GI Death Toll: 4175
UPDATE 9/30, 8:00 am: BUSH THREATENS THE
NATION. His understanding of the problem: "Troubled assets are clogging the
financial system". Quick... call ROTO ROUTER....
His threats: "...
urgent situation... consequences will grow worse each day... direct impact on
the retirement accounts, pension funds, and personal savings... economic damage
will be painful and lasting..."
MY CHALLENGE TO
BUSH: First, tell us how we got here, then tell us what the specific
problem is, then tell us exactly HOW the bailout is going to fix it,
then STFU you lying piece of sh*t.
"... economic hardship,
permanent damage,
Contact the Nader Campaign... see what's on the
table and why it should be
http://www.votenader.org/index.html
9/30 - WE HAVE WON A TEMPORARY VICTORY
BUT THEY WILL BE BACK WITH ALL GUNS BLAZING
Don't stop... keep calling. Twice a day
is absolutely necessary... and start calling the Senate,
too.
Help build my bailout website... bailoutfacts.com
Bush claims "most or all" of money will be
repaid
Why are the TV airways being
clogged with ads from investment firms?
Bogus claims are being made... see
below
The GOP and Democrat Parties are putting on a Punch
and Judy show and using YOU for the puppets.
~~ William W. Wexler
"If America had state-run
media, how would it look any different than what we have today?"
~~Amy Goodman, DemocracyNOW! on Pacifica
Radio
Obama runs right, far, far right.... Iraq, guns,
health insurance, Faith-based initiative, public campaign financing, negotiation with
friends and enemies, FISA, death penalty
Impeach Bush NOW
Obama Flips and Flops
Outrage of the Week
Editorials
Whistle Blowers
Impeachment
TortureGate
EnronGate
Favorite Links
Anti-War Links
Tenet Reality Check
Treaty Buster Dubya
StopDubya Archives
THC Secret Societies
Contact Us
So what's the
story line for the bailout?
I heard Obama's economic advisor on Rachel
Maddow last night making unchallenged assertions about what was going to
happen if we DON'T pass the $700 bailout plan for the 2 party system (also
known as the "Wall Street bailout plan") She made a long string of
facts that are fear-mongering and so far unsubstantiated.
The key to passing this bill is FEAR. You are supposed to fear dire
consequences more than the ramifications of this BAD BILL.
So what are the claims being made? Here's a
short list.
1. You won't be able to get a loan for
college
2. You won't be able to stay in your
home
3. Businesses are going to start laying
off workers and eliminating jobs
4. This will cause lasting, irreversible
damage that will persist for decades
Well, excuse me for excess curiosity, but since
economists cannot actually predict what the bailout will do, if ANYTHING,
to fix the problem, or even agree what the problem is to be fixed, then I
guess the questions have to be asked... "How exactly does
this affect the student loan system? If I'm in my home already, why
can't I stay here? Why are businesses going to start laying people
off... are they going to stop building things, providing services?
What exactly is going to be damaged that cannot be fixed at some later
date?"
The DEMOCRATS are acting like REPUBLICANS... they are trying to
goad you into buying into an unprecedented $700 billion dollar giveaway to
the same people who CAUSED THE PROBLEM. In actuality, they are
trying to save the TWO PARTY SYSTEM. They know full well that
collusion between the government and business is how we got to where
we are today. If there were other political parties involved in
policy making, this would have NEVER HAPPENED.
Americans are beginning to realize this, too. The "lesser of two
evils" has finally become so evil that it is threatening to destroy
our economy if we don't fork over the cash. Give us $700 billion or
we will take away your student loans, kick you out of your
homes, lay you off and eliminate your job, and destroy the
economy for decades.
That's what I'm hearing. A complete line of bullshit...
unsubstantiated, undocumented, inexplicable... just a nice steaming
plate of fear.
YOUR BEST ANTIDOTE... RESISTANCE. RING THEIR PHONES, VOTE
THEM OUT OF OFFICE. SEE HOW IN THE BOX BELOW.
Congressional contact
information
Capitol
switchboard: 800-473-6711
HOUSE: Link... you can email and then click through to get
the phone number
SENATE: Link: you can get their phone number and
web email form here
Important:
Your Senator may not be up for re-election this year, so let them
know that you will NOT FORGET how they vote for this as it goes
south, drains the Treasury, and the Wall Street moguls walk away
with golden parachutes made out of your money. You are going
to be REWARDING THEIR FAILURE AND RECKLESSNESS with outrageous
"salaries" where they make more in 1 minute than you do in a
MONTH.
McCain's campaign tries the possum
gambit
McCain gets deadly serious... by playing
dead. His campaign claims it is NOT campaigning (but it still is)
because the economic meltdown is so crucial that he cannot pursue election
and work on it at the same time. If he ever gets elected, I hope he
never has to do two things at the same time. Like chew gum and
walk.
SOUND THE DEATH KNELL, MCCAIN'S CAMPAIGN IS
OFFICIALLY DEAD
I predicted some time ago, not here but in one of
my slactivist posts somewhere, that McCain's campaign would take on the
same tone of desperation that Bob Dole's did in the '96 election. I
think we've just seen it start.
McCain's assertion that he must stop his campaign
and "help" the financial crisis (country first!) is ludicrous on many
levels. First, he personally knows nothing about economics and in
fact has a 26 year long voting streak for bills that contributed to
this mess through deregulation and gutting of government oversight.
Second, he has the Keating 5 scandal in his resume, which was the mid-80s
version of this exact same thing except that back then he was an
active participant. Third, his campaign is taking body blow after
vicious uppercut over the Wall Street bailout. Americans understand
that the Democrats are incompetent to understand and stop deregulation,
but it's the GOP that has been aggressively pursuing this course and
therefore most of the blame is theirs. And fourth, and probably the
most damaging, this appears to be a cowardly ploy to duck the foreign
policy debate that's supposed to happen tonight (9/26) and this will be is
the undoing of McCain's campaign.
How does this undo McCain's campaign? All
along he has been presenting himself as the experienced, steady, fearless,
take-charge kind of guy who will know what to do in any situation.
Now he's made a lot of noise about suspending his campaign, he's had his
moment in Washington and couldn't even regroup his President and party to
come up with a single coherent answer - instead they walked out of a
meeting last night. So his thesis about suspending his campaign due
to a national emergency is debunked. It's also debunked by
precedent. National emergencies have never stopped McCain from doing
what he wanted in the past... for example, having a photo op with Bush and
a giant birthday cake while the levees were going down in New
Orleans.
The shine has worn off of Sarah Palin. Every
time she opens her lying piehole, she utters another phrase that shows how
incompetent and under-informed she is. She is ignorant to a
dangerous level. She is ignorant to the level of people who don't
even spend 5 minutes watching the Faux News crawler. She doesn't
know as much about politics as the two drunks that sit down at the local
tavern every day bee-essing about it. She doesn't know even 1/100th as
much about politics as the average New York
cabbie. She has quickly turned from an asset to a
liability, and the McCain camp is bouncing off the walls and
tearing their hair out trying to figure out a way to keep her isolated
from the press. The upcoming VP debate has to have them crapping
their drawers.
If there's one trait the McCain supporters can't
tolerate from their candidate, it's cowardice. This "suspension" is
a coward's act, a sign that his campaign is on the ropes and trying to
call for a "time out". Now you can look for desperate 24 hour
campaigns on the bus, as he runs around the country doing a Bob Dole
sequel. He may take Palin with him, that is, if he doesn't find a
way to replace her first. I wouldn't rule that out.
You heard it at StopDubya first.
Bush threatens recession, says "most if not
all" money will be repaid
George W went on TV last night to tell Americans
that his "bailout"plan is necessary to prevent an economic crash like 1929
(my words, not his... he said "recession, panic", and a few other choice
words).
Bush claimed that "most if not all" the money will
be repaid". I think it's time to put on the hip boots, folks... we
know that's not happening. Whenever you get that much money into the
hands of government workers it's going to melt away like snow in the
spring.
Oddly, I thought Bush looked like Will Ferral doing
a Bush impersonation when he stepped up to the mic. The guy looks
more like a chipmonk now than a chimpanzee. Very odd.
Fascism rears its ugly head in America, part
2
Just when you thought
it couldn't get any goddam stupider, we go into an economic meltdown and
the same people who have been ripping you off for the last 8 years since
Phil Gramm knocked the chucks out and the Wall Street Express took off on
the luge to hell, the same people who tell you there's too much
government, too much welfare, too many handouts... those same people are
NOW standing before you with a club behind their back threatening a
RECESSION if you don't fork it over.
(9/23/08) First order of
business: CALL YOUR CONGRESS PEOPLE. If you have never done
this before, it is PAINLESS and you will talk to a nice operator who is
just WAITING to hear from you.
SO STOP READING THIS
AND CALL THEM. I'm serious. If you've got one iota of
patriotism in you, you MUST MAKE THIS CALL.
If you
don't know what to say, say THIS: "I don't know what the
solution to this problem is, but you need to tell <put in the name of
your congress critter> that I'm a voting member of their consitutency
and I want them to WAIT. There is NO HURRY for this. If this
doesn't take at least ONE MONTH to get hammered out, I will definitely
work to vote them out of office".
The phone call shouldn't cost
you over a buck or two, hardly anything to think about when EVERY SINGLE
MEMBER OF YOUR FAMILY IS ABOUT TO TAKE ON $2300 MORE DEBT IF THEY PASS
BUSH/PAULSON BILL.
Don't know where to
call?
Senate
House
Fascism rears its ugly head in
America
Lost in the shuffle as
Americans are distracted with Palin, managing their home budgets, the new
school year, two hurricanes, and the beginning of the pro football
season: The US government has taken over Fannie Mae and Freddie
Mac. These are two of the largest banks in America and their abuse
of credit has created the housing crisis that threatens to bring the
American economy down.
(9/14/08) When it comes
to economic policy the Bush wing of the GOP (that includes McCain/Palin)
sure have some funny ideas. Joe Biden shares some of these, too, by
the way.
When it comes to regulations
that prevent usury and other loan practices on homes, credit cards and
consumer credit, it's all business all the time. Every single law
passed since Reagan has been designed to faciliate and enable businesses
to squeeze every dime they can out of the economy. Every single law
passed has been against the best interests of consumer protection from
predatory lending.
Usury - setting
Americans up for a lifetime of financial slavery
Credit companies are allowed
to make deals and exercise fine print tricks that are nothing short of
theft. How can it possibly be legal for Household Finance
Corporation to charge 27% on a $12,000 signature loan? How can it be
possible for credit card companies to lure you into balance transfer at
"ZERO INTEREST" and then jack it up to 21% if your payment is ONE DAY
LATE? How can it be possible for home loan companies to keep selling
your mortgage off to Wall Street investment firms until you have no idea
who owns your mortgage, what their business practices are, and whether
they will even be in business for the duration of your loan? How can
it be possible for mortgage companies to make come on loan offers
with floating interest rates that quickly rise to the point where even
people with good jobs couldn't afford them?
It's possible because the
banking system is integrated with the US government. This is called
"fascism" by dictionary definition. Reagan called it "deregulation"
and "privatization". These are all GOP buzz words that should set
off alarm bells in everyone's minds. The GOP, along with the help
and complicity of the Democrats who are also on the banking lobby payroll,
have turned the banking industry into the Wild West. They are
the bandits and you are the townsfolk. The sheriff and the posse
have been bought off and they now work for the bandits.
Bankruptcy -
your safety net has been torn up by the banks
It used to be that if you got
into financial trouble you could declare bankruptcy and pick up the pieces
of your life and make an attempt to fix it. A job loss, serious
illness with high medical expenses, death of a primary wage
earner, natural disaster, or other life-altering financial
catastrophe might be bad enough, but at least you had Chapter 7 to fall
back on.
It is now very difficult to
file Chapter 7 (liquidation of debt). The banking industry, the same
people who brought you credit card rates you can never repay, variable
rate home loans that will put you behind the 8 ball, and signature loans
with interest rates of 27% or even more, have tightened the
regulations which used to protect you by allowing you to liquidate the
debt you have accumulated from their predatory lending. Law vary
from state to state. It is not impossible to get Chapter 7, but the
number of people who can get this has been reduced drmatically and the
process has been made into a maze that is designed to discourage you
from trying to do it. With today's inflationary
pressures there may appear to be plenty of money in your household that
disqualifies you but quickly disappears if you stop at the gas station and
grocery store on the way home from work.
Instead of Chapter 7, the laws
now "encourage" you to file Chapter 13, using the threat of home
disclosure. Chapter 13 is stacked 100% for the lenders, and is
basically a safety net for THEM, not you. They can screw you into
the ground, and then when you can't get up, they can STILL get repaid if
you declare Chapter 13. You just consolidate your debt into a new
loan and the state makes sure you make your payments... or
else.
The Demcrat/GOP duopoly... the
"gift that keeps on taking".
De facto proof the Dems are spineless
idiots
The GOP "mavericks" have chosen their VP
candidate; a religious fanatic with a public record of lying, pork
barrel politics, abuse of power, and what the conservative wing of the GOP
used to consider an unpardonable sin, namely a teenage pregnancy.
Yet the Democrat party machine is helpless, unable to to frame
the issues of truth and decency. They are reacting like someone who
can't swim who got pushed into the pool at the deep end, flailing and
sinking.
(9-12-08) Heavy sigh. The conventions
are behind us. Coming off a triumphant Democrat convention, highly
criticized for its P. T. Barnum-esque delivery and literally beaten to a
pulp by the talking heads who couldn't stop talking and wondering about
every little gossipy detail, the Dems sat back and breathlessly waited to
see who McCain's partner in the Sacrificial Dance would be. (My Talking
Heads, Chris Matthews and Keith Olbermann, apparently got reassigned after
their goofball performance. Matthews, isn't there a state senate job
waiting for you somewhere?)
In comes Sarah Palin, a person who should be
rejected out of hand by anyone with a brain and common sense. Only
in America can you see the Democrats lose the argument that being a
US Senator is better qualifying experience to be President than being the
mayor of Wasilla, Alaska, population 8500 souls and half a dozen
moose. Her primary qualification for VP and eventually President is
that she keeps asserting that she is, it over and over, like a crazed
Moonie mantra... 'It's all about reform, I'm ready to
reform..."
The Democrats cannot frame the issues to snap the
electorate's attention back to reality (or even the "reality" that the
Dems cooked up, which is more wishes and projection than reality).
The choice of Palin has negated McCain's experience argument; however,
Obama's choice of Biden has negated his "change" argument, so I'd call
this a net-net loss for America. Palin should be a
lightning rod candidate for women more than anything Hillary could have
possibly dreamed of. She's a kooky religious wingnut, (although I
guess she's claiming to have never spoken in tongues). She's got no
record to run on except being on the wrong side of every pork barrel issue
in Alaska in the the last 2 years. She has serious charges of abuse
of power and breaking the law in regards to her sister's ugly
divorce and how she entangled state officials in it. She
lies about her own record continuously and Obama's statements on a
regular basis. She would repeal Roe V Wade if given the
opportunity. Seriously... the GOP argues that she's experienced in
foreign policy because she is from a state that's next to
Russia.
So why is this
wholly unqualified nobody mayor from Alaska holding the entire Democrat
machine, especially Plouffe and Axelrod, in a trance while they wait 6
weeks for the knockout punch? It's because the Democrats ARE
COMPLICIT in every single problem they need to be talking about. The
Dems are FOR pork barrel, they voted FOR funding the war, they are NOT for
single payer health care, they have adopted a religious posture just as
goofy as Palin's. They have done nothing about impeachment, nothing
about alternative energy, they offer no change in Middle East policy... so
the only argument they can make is "Palin is worse than we are".
The self-proclaimed "progressive" organs of the Democrats such as
Huffington Post run scandal story after expose trying to shock the
faithful sheep back into "Hope" and "Change". But the message of
'change' got trashed back in April when Obama started his Run
for the Right by telling AIPAC not to worry, everything was going to stay
the same. He followed that up by repudiating his own statement about
talking to any leader by calling Hamas "terrorists". The FISA
debacle, "faith-based initiative", backtrack on Iraq, promise to
escalate Afghanistan, dumping public financing, well, you know the
story. His new slogan should be "The more things change, the more
they stay the SAME." More religion in government, more domestic
spying, more wars in the ME, more power to the health insurance
companies. Who do they think they're fooling? The ONLY vote
they have now is the "I can't vote for a Republican" vote. So
long, Independents, it was nice to have you around for a while.
So is the Dems argument "We're not as bad as Palin"
worth a damn? Well, that's a MATTER OF OPINION, but now everyone should
see the dilemma that the two party system has presented
to voters yet AGAIN. You can choose between crooks and liars or
wafflers and machine politicians.
That's the argument I'd like to see the minor party
candidates articulating. More soon...
Where are the Dems on the arrest of jounalists
outside the Conventions?
Nowhere to be found. Same with your
"progressive" Corporation Media. Have another slug of that Svedka
vodka, get your health insurance, staple your forehead. But no truth
for you, just Democrat party shilling and corporation
payouts.
"Here, Arianna, here's your advertising revenue,
just STFU about impeachment and minor party candidates and environment and
open debates, heh heh heh, wink. And who cares about those
journalists, they can rot in jail. That's what they're good for,
anyway, they won't PARTICIPATE like you do."
Your "progressive" media is on the take,
too...
It is now painfully apparent that the fix is in for
the this race. At least the phony progressive news media thinks so. Why can't they
talk about how 3rd parties are pulling votes from Barack Obama and
John McCain?
(8-25-08) A couple of days ago there was a hubub about why
Barack Obama can't "put this away" in the polls. For 12 weeks he's
been leading McCain in the polls by a 2 to 10 point margin, but this
closed to zero and everyone wants to know WHY? Is it disaffected
Hillary voters? Is it because he's "black"? Is it because he
"lacks experience"? (That always makes me guffaw when I think of
Dubya).
Well, no, it's not any of those. It's because
he's run so far right that he's driving people out of the party.
Yep, there are thousands of us who supported Obama during the nomination
who don't support what he BECAME after the nomination was his.
There's an elephant in the room and the progressive
media doesn't see it. The MSM will never see it, but why not the
progressives? Shouldn't they be interested in what's happening to
progressive voters who are now supporting Nader and other
candidates? Wouldn't you think that HuffPo, AlterNet, and the rest
would be the least bit interested in candidates that are dragging 10 to
15% out of the collective voting pool?
Well OF COURSE they should. But you'll have to
get that information elsewhere, because these people are so busy sucking
up to the MSM that they will NEVER breathe a word about 3rd parties.
That's a "taboo" subject. 3rd parties are only "lunatics", "wakkos",
"fringe", and so on. They should only be mentioned in passing,
dismissively, with a disparaging comment and a wink or sad shake of the
the head.
If Arianna Huffington and Jonathan Alter had any
journalistic integrity, why would they be developing business interests
with ANYONE, especially MSNBC, which is a subsidiary of General
Electric? What is up with that? Has anyone asked them
how they can claim to be independent when they get paychecks from MSNBC,
and they allow advertising on their websites?
Here's a sample this morning....
Capitol Hill Blue - AFLAC, nice
popup from Old Navy with a bikini model, HP, John McCain for
President (three times), Sony computers, Windows Vista
Raw Story - Obama/Biden, PBS,
AT&T, Swingline staplers(????), McCain, Western Union, GE "Interest
Plus", Grainger Industrial Supplies
Alternet - Credo, Air America, Edison
Institute, (a fossil fuel advocate). (Credo, BTW, presents themselves as a
"progressive" communications company that sends a miniscule per cent of
its profit to
some cause. I think it's 1/2%.)
Huffington Post - Svedka vodka,
PBS, Kaiser Permanente
So, ask yourself, WHO are these
"journalists" working for, is it YOU or somebody
else?
That's why it's a DEMOCRAT/REPUBLICAN race to them...
they've sold out, too. I shouldn't be picking on HuffPo and
Alternet, they are just two examples. But the plain truth is
that it's not scripted in the MSM to talk about what Ralph Nader says,
because it's not in the MSM's INTEREST to have politicians telling them
that they are censoring the debate. But they ARE.
Think of this... there are approximately 250 million
Americans. Right now whenever we want to hear new ideas about
national policy, if you listen to the MSM, you're going to hear it from 3
guys. Obama, Biden, and McCain. (Don't get me started on
Biden, he's a real "champ". Instead, visit Nader's site for a statement on
the blunder Obama's campaign made by putting this plagiarizing clown in
the VP slot.) So here's the problem... why are the so-called
standard-bearers of progressive media covering the race the same way that the
MSM is? You've got some guy who still thinks that getting shot
down in Viet Nam makes him presidential material who can't even speak, a
"community organizer" from Chicago who ran so far right after he got
nominated that he sounds more like Bush than McCain does, and his VP
choice who is completely corrupted with banking industry money and has
been in Washington 10 years longer than McCain has. Wow. Do
you think these guys are going to give you the straight poop about
ANYTHING?
Probably
not. But we've still got some hope out there.... I'm rooting
for MoJo, DemocracyNow, anti-war.com, CounterPunch,
Truthout, Politico, and others... they are still fighting the
good fight.
Back to the elephant in the room. In my
state, which is one that Obama ought to be able to turn blue, I believe
Nader will pull enough votes to stop him cold. Barr is relatively
unknown here, and the GOP voters here are much more loyal to the party
than the progressive Dems are to their party.
While the MSM covers the horse race...
The two major parties keep screwing the
rest of us at warp 10.
Impeachment proponents... the Democrat party has now
nodded in your direction. Last Friday, July 25, they held
non-impeachment hearings in what can only be characterized as the
most ludicrous political theater in my lifetime. But NOW they can
say they "did" something about it.
There was NOT ONE SINGLE WORD about the hearings in
any of the corporation press... not in the Wall Street Journal, Washington
Post, NYT, NewsHour, ABC, NBC, MSNBC, not one DAMN WORD about it.
It's like it NEVER HAPPENED, but next time you bring up "impeach Bush",
they will remind you that Congress has already dealt with that
matter. UPDATE:
the "progressives" who
covered it had it up for 24 hours or less...
Barack McBama has now acquired the credentials he needs to be President by
going overseas to be photographed with world leaders. He did not
make the gaffe that the MSM was breathlessly waiting to jump on, but he
still provided the O'Cain camp with some media ammo over the manufactured
controversies (aren't they ALL?) over whether or not he should have taken
a photo op with wounded troops, and of course, whether or not Barack
McBama is qualified to speak at the site he spoke at. While the media was reporting
on that, John O'Cain managed to slip in a line about
how he knew how to win a war. I guess we WON in
Viet Nam, eh? I've been wrong for all these years... it must
have been O'Cain's piloting skills that won it for us.
Meanwhile back at the blogs...
The histrionics of Roy Sekoff on MSNBC are a famous body of work in
their own right. The website is famous for running hysterical
headlines about who said what, and are frequently 100% incorrect. But
there's something else going on at Arianna Huffington's website...
HUFFPO IS CENSORING READER COMMENTS. Guess what they don't
allow on their site? It's not what you might think. It's
progressive commentary. Yes, that's correct, HuffPo is censoring
progressive political commentary, giving the impression that their
"progressive" visitors are all Obama Democrats. Anyone who
speaks out for Nader or McKinney... never mind. If you are
interested in challenging the corporate control of America and our
institutions, don't waste your time there. UPDATE: you can
add Raw Story to the list, too.
What a great horse race
You can find out all you want at the "progressive" blogs like
Huffington. Oh that dirty McCain, he said this nasty thing and that
nasty thing about Saint Obama. And the MSM is not covering it?
Or are they covering it too much? Or just right? Pfffft.
What's important to note is that there is a growing 3rd party movement
in this nation and we will knock on the doors until we get our candidates
on the ballots and into office. The only way to sieze back control
of our public institutions from the corporations is to end the control of
the main parties. They put on a Punch-and-Judy show for us while
they are picking your pocket and the puppeteers are taking it to the
bank. MORE SHORTLY....
Retraction of Obama
Endorsement
It's Nader '08 if you want real change
I am regretfully withdrawing my endorsement of Barack
Obama for President.
See documentation of Obama flip flops....
Recent public statements made by the candidate express
views that are contrary to the values held by this website and are a
betrayal of the Progressive movement that carried him to win the
nomination.
Obama has recently expressed support for a
dangerous FISA bill that erodes the 4th Amendment and
doesn't even need to be passed. There is no reason why the original
FISA bill couldn't be restored until after the election and then the issue
be resolved in an environment free from electioneering.
His stated plan to expand the "faith
based initiative" is a slap in the face. Those programs
have been exposed as ineffective and biased by former directors
Dilulio and Kuo. The administration of the money and employment
practices are tainted by religious bias and prosthelytizing. This is
just a BAD idea. The government is expressly prohibited from getting
into the affairs of churches by the First Amendment. How is that not
obvious to Obama? He's claimed to be a Constitutional
scholar.
His recent public statements echoing Scalia's
sentiments on gun ownership and the death
penalty ought to be setting off alarm bells in the Progressive
movement. The Supreme Court has upheld the right of the Federal
Government to overturn a local law banning handguns. This ruling
will spawn a new onslaught of gun "rights" cases to bring guns into every
aspect of our daily lives. You won't be able to go out in public
without taking the risk of being shot by someone who will tell the court
that you were behaving suspiciously or they thought you were threatening
them. Regarding the death penalty, many if not most Progressives
believe that the death penalty ought to be abolished as it is a violation
of the 8th Amendment and has been known for decades to not work as a
deterrent. Again, Obama comes down on the wrong side of two
Constitutional issues.
So who should get your vote?
In the 2004 election the Green Party exploded itself
over the issue of "safe states". There were some people, the
"anybody-but-Bush" Greens, who wanted to only run a candidate in states
that were not competitive. That is, they wanted to make sure that
the Green Party would not throw the election to the Republicans by
"stealing" votes from the Democrats. The "scorched earth" Greens
felt that the Party should run a candidate hard in all 50 states and let
the chips fall where they may. The theory is that the Democrats are
never going to voluntarily become Progressive. The only way this is
going to happen is if they are forced to do so.
Well, the events of the last 2 years and especially
the last 6 months ought to be a lesson to Progressives. Despite the
fact that our nation has been beaten to a pulp by Bush policies for 8
years, the Democrats STILL DON'T GET IT. We gave them control of
Congress in 2006 and they have done NOTHING to stop Bush. Outside of
a few principled people, they have largely rolled over and are the party
of the status quo. Progressives like Kucinich and Wexler are
marginalized and ignored. Candidates like McKinney and Nader are
ridiculed.
Obama started his campaign with a direct appeal to
Progressives and now that he has locked up the nomination he has dumped
us. He's now showing us his true colors, and it's not a pretty
picture. All his fine talk about changing politics is proving to be
BS. He's not changing anything. He's grubbing for money every
chance he gets and he's clawing his way to the center and abandoning any
idea that could possibly be construed to be progressive.
So, I think it's time to put Nader on the ballot in
all 50 states. I think it's time for the Democrats to lose YET
ANOTHER "sure thing" election and this time maybe they will pay attention
to how it happened. Don't worry about "how bad it could be with a
McCain presidency". We're already there.
Nader '08... change you can REALLY believe
in.
-Wexler
from www.Antiwar.com
June 20, 2008
Bomb Iran? What's to Stop Us?
by Ray McGovern
Unlike the attack on Iraq five years ago, to deal with Iran there need
be no massing of troops. And, with the propaganda buildup already well
under way, there need be little, if any, forewarning before shock and awe
and pox – in the form of air and missile attacks – begin.
This time it will be largely the Air Force's show, punctuated by
missile and air strikes by the Navy. Israeli-American agreement has now
been reached at the highest level; the armed forces planners, plotters and
pilots are working out the details.
Emerging from a 90-minute White House meeting with President George W.
Bush on June 4, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said the two leaders
were of one mind:
"We reached agreement on the need to take care of the Iranian threat. I
left with a lot less question marks [than] I had entered with regarding
the means, the timetable restrictions, and American resoluteness to deal
with the problem. George Bush understands the severity of the Iranian
threat and the need to vanquish it, and intends to act on that matter
before the end of his term in the White House."
Does that sound like a man concerned that Bush is just bluff and
bluster?
A member of Olmert's delegation noted that same day that the two
countries had agreed to cooperate in case of an attack by Iran, and that
"the meetings focused on 'operational matters' pertaining to the Iranian
threat." So bring 'em on!
A show of hands please. How many believe Iran is about to attack the
U.S. or Israel?
You say you missed Olmert's account of what Bush has undertaken to do?
So did I. We are indebted to intrepid journalist Chris Hedges for
including the quote in his article of June 8, "The Iran Trap."
We can perhaps be excused for missing Olmert's confident words about
"Israel's best friend" that week. Your attention – like mine – may have
been riveted on the June 5 release of the findings of the Senate
Intelligence Committee regarding administration misrepresentations of
pre-Iraq-war intelligence – the so-called "Phase II" investigation (also
known, irreverently, as the "Waiting-for-Godot Study").
Better late than never, I suppose.
Oversight?
Yet I found myself thinking: It took them five years, and that is what
passes for oversight? Yes, the president and vice president and their
courtiers lied us into war. And now a bipartisan report could assert that
fact formally; and committee chair Jay Rockefeller could sum it up
succinctly:
"In making the case for war, the administration repeatedly presented
intelligence as fact when in reality it was unsubstantiated, contradicted,
or even non-existent. As a result, the American people were led to believe
that the threat from Iraq was much greater than actually existed."
But as I listened to Senator Rockefeller, I had this sinking feeling
that in five or six years time, those of us still around will be listening
to a very similar post mortem looking back on an even more disastrous
attack on Iran.
My colleagues and I in Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity
(VIPS) issued repeated warnings, before the invasion of Iraq, about the
warping of intelligence. And our memoranda met considerable resonance in
foreign media.
We could get no ink or airtime, however, in the Fawning Corporate Media
(FCM) in the U.S. Nor can we now.
In a same-day critique of Colin Powell's unfortunate speech to the U.N.
on Feb. 5, 2003, we warned the president to widen his circle of advisers
"beyond those clearly bent on a war for which we see no compelling reason
and from which we believe the unintended consequences are likely to be
catastrophic."
It was a no-brainer for anyone who knew anything about intelligence,
the Middle East, and the brown noses leading intelligence analysis at the
CIA.
Former U.N. senior weapons inspector and former Marine major, Scott
Ritter, and many others were saying the same thing. But none of us could
get past the president's praetorian guard to drop a memo into his in-box,
so to speak. Nor can we now.
The 'Iranian Threat'
However much the same warnings are called for now with respect to Iran,
there is even less prospect that any contrarians could puncture and break
through what former White House spokesman Scott McClellan calls the
president's "bubble."
By all indications, Vice President Dick Cheney and his huge staff
continue to control the flow of information to the president.
But, you say, the president cannot be unaware of the far-reaching
disaster an attack on Iran would bring?
Well, this is a president who admits he does not read newspapers, but
rather depends on his staff to keep him informed. And the memos Cheney
does brief to Bush pooh-pooh the dangers.
This time no one is saying we will be welcomed as liberators, since the
planning does not include – officially, at least – any U.S. boots on the
ground. Besides, even on important issues like the price of gasoline, the
performance of the president's staff has been spotty.
Think back on the White House press conference of Feb. 28, when Bush
was asked what advice he would give to Americans facing the prospect of
$4-a-gallon gasoline.
"Wait, what did you just say?" the president interrupted. "You're
predicting $4-a-gallon gasoline?...That's interesting. I hadn't heard
that."
A poll in January showed that nearly three-quarters of Americans were
expecting $4-a-gallon gas. That forecast was widely reported in late
February, and discussed by the White House press secretary at the media
briefing the day before the president's press conference.
Here's the alarming thing: Unlike Iraq, which was prostrate after the
Gulf War and a dozen years of sanctions, Iran can retaliate in a number of
dangerous ways, launching a war for which our forces are ill-prepared.
The lethality, intensity and breadth of ensuing hostilities will make
the violence in Iraq look, in comparison, like a volleyball game between
St. Helena's High School and Mount St. Ursula.
Cheney's Brainchild
Attacking Iran is Vice President Dick Cheney's brainchild, if that is
the correct word.
Cheney proposed launching air strikes last summer on Iranian
Revolutionary Guards bases, but was thwarted by the Joint Chiefs of Staff
who insisted that would be unwise, according to J. Scott Carpenter, a
senior State Department official at the time.
Chastened by the unending debacle in Iraq, this time around Pentagon
officials reportedly are insisting on a "policy decision" regarding "what
would happen after the Iranians would go after our folks," according to
Carpenter.
Serious concerns include the vulnerability of the critical U.S. supply
line from Kuwait to Baghdad, our inability to reinforce and the eventual
possibility that the U.S. might be forced into a choice between
ignominious retreat and using, or threatening to use, "mini-nukes."
Pentagon opposition was confirmed in a July 2007 commentary by former
Bush adviser Michael Gerson, who noted the "fear of the military
leadership" that Iran would have "escalation dominance" in any conflict
with the U.S.
Writing in the Washington Post last July, Gerson indicated that
"escalation dominance" means, "in a broadened conflict, the Iranians could
complicate our lives in Iraq and the region more than we complicate
theirs."
The Joint Chiefs also have opposed the option of attacking Iran's
nuclear sites, according to former Iran specialist at the National
Security Council, Hillary Mann, who has close ties with senior Pentagon
officials.
Mann confirmed that Adm. William Fallon joined the Joint Chiefs in
strongly opposing such an attack, adding that he made his opposition known
to the White House, as well.
The outspoken Fallon was forced to resign in March, and will be
replaced as CENTCOM commander by Gen. David Petraeus – apparently in
September. Petraeus has already demonstrated his penchant to circumvent
the chain of command in order to do Cheney's bidding (by making false
claims about Iranian weaponry in Iraq, for example).
In sum, a perfect storm seems to be gathering in late summer or early
fall.
Controlled Media
The experience of those of us whose job it was to analyze the
controlled media of the Soviet Union and China for insights into Russian
and Chinese intentions have been able to put that experience to good use
in monitoring our own controlled media as they parrot the party line.
Suffice it to say that the FCM is already well embarked, a la Iraq, on
its accustomed mission to provide stenographic services for the White
House to indoctrinate Americans on the "threat" from Iran and prepare them
for the planned air and missile attacks.
At least this time we are spared the "mushroom cloud" bugaboo. Neither
Bush nor Cheney wish to call attention, even indirectly, to the fact that
all 16 U.S. intelligence agencies concluded last November that Iran had
stopped nuclear weapons-related work in 2003 and had not resumed it as of
last year.
In a pre-FCM age, it would have been looked on as inopportune, at the
least, to manufacture intelligence to justify another war hard on the
heels of a congressional report that on Iraq the administration made
significant claims not supported by the intelligence.
But (surprise, surprise!) the very damning Senate Intelligence
Committee report got meager exposure in the media.
So far it has been a handful of senior military officers that have kept
us from war with Iran. It hardly suffices to give them vocal
encouragement, or to warn them that the post WW-II Nuremberg Tribunal
ruled explicitly that "just-following-orders" is no defense when war
crimes are involved.
And still less when the "supreme international crime" – a war of
aggression is involved.
Senior officers trying to slow the juggernaut lumbering along toward an
attack on Iran have been scandalized watching what can only be described
as unconscionable dereliction of duty in the House of Representatives,
which the Constitution charges with the duty of impeaching a president,
vice president or other senior official charged with high crimes and
misdemeanors.
Where Are You, Conyers?
In 2005, before John Conyers became chair of the House Committee on the
Judiciary, he introduced a bill to explore impeaching the president and
was asked by Lewis Lapham of Harpers why he was for impeachment then. He
replied:
"To take away the excuse that we didn't know. So that two, or four, or
ten years from now, if somebody should ask, 'Where were you, Conyers, and
where was the U.S. Congress?' when the Bush administration declared the
Constitution inoperative...none of the company here present can plead
ignorance or temporary insanity [or] say that 'somehow it escaped our
notice.'"
In the three years since then, the train of abuses and usurpations has
gotten longer and Conyers has become chair of the committee. Yet he has
dawdled and dawdled, and has shown no appetite for impeachment.
On July 23, 2007, Conyers told Cindy Sheehan, Rev. Lennox Yearwood, and
me that he would need 218 votes in the House and they were not there.
A week ago, 251 members of the House voted to refer to Conyers'
committee the 35 Articles of Impeachment proposed by Congressman Dennis
Kucinich.
Former Congresswoman Elizabeth Holtzman, who sat on Judiciary with
Conyers when it voted out three articles of impeachment on President
Richard Nixon, spoke out immediately: "The House should commence an
impeachment inquiry forthwith."
Much of the work has been done. As Holtzman noted, Kucinich's Articles
of Impeachment, together with the Senate report that on Iraq we were led
to war based on false pretenses – arguably the most serious charge – go a
long way toward jump-starting any additional investigative work Congress
needs to do.
And seldom mentioned is the voluminous book published by Conyers
himself, "Constitution in Crisis," containing a wealth of relevant detail
on the crimes of the current executive.
Conyers' complaint that there is not enough time is a dog that won't
hunt, as Lyndon Johnson would say.
How can Conyers say this one day, and on the next say that if Bush
attacks Iran, well then, the House may move toward impeachment.
Afraid of the media?
During the meeting last July with Cindy Sheehan, Rev. Yearwood and me,
and during an interview in December on "Democracy Now," Conyers was
surprisingly candid in expressing his fear of Fox News and how it could
paint Democrats as divisive if they pursued impeachment.
Ironically, this time it is Fox and the rest of the FCM that is afraid
– witness their virtual silence on Kucinich's very damning 35 Articles of
Impeachment.
The only way to encourage constructive media attention would be for
Conyers to act. The FCM could be expected to fulminate against that, but
they could not afford to ignore impeachment, as they are able to ignore
other unpleasant things – like preparations for another "war of choice."
I would argue that perhaps the most effective way to prevent air and
missile attacks on Iran and a wider Middle East war is to proceed as
Elizabeth Holtzman urges – with impeachment "forthwith."
Does Conyers not owe at least that much encouragement to those
courageous officers who have stood up to Cheney in trying to prevent wider
war and catastrophe in the Middle East?
Scott McClellan has been quite clear in reminding us that once the
president decided to invade Iraq, he was not going to let anything stop
him. There is ample evidence that Bush has taken a similar decision with
respect to Iran – with Olmert as his chief counsel, no less.
It is getting late, but this is due largely to Conyers' own dithering.
Now, to his credit, Dennis Kucinich has forced the issue with 35
well-drafted Articles of Impeachment.
What the country needs is the young John Conyers back. Not the one now
surrounded by fancy lawyers and henpecked by the lady of the House.
In October 1974, after he and the even younger Elizabeth Holtzman faced
up to their duty on House Judiciary and voted out three Articles of
Impeachment on President Richard Nixon, Conyers wrote this:
"This inquiry was forced on us by an accumulation of disclosures which,
finally and after unnecessary delays, could no longer be
ignored...Impeachment is difficult and it is painful, but the courage to
do what must be done is the price of remaining free."
Someone needs to ask John Conyers if he still believes that; and, if he
does, he must summon the courage to "do what must be done."
Find this article at: http://www.antiwar.com/mcgovern
reprinted without permission for the public good
by
William W.
Wexler
editor@stopdubya.com
|
|
