I heard the news the morning... John Edwards has dropped out of the race for President. This is extremely disappointing to me as I really liked the guy and what he stood for. The only other candidate I really liked was Dennis Kucinich, another long shot in the presidential bid but hey, I usually go for the underdog anyway. I have a soft spot for them, but don't tell anyone.
Honestly, though, I'm very disappointed, aggravated, irritated and any number of other words you might come up to describe how I feel right now. Really. This presidential campaign really seems unfair and built to benefit only the person or persons who can raise the most money and get the most air time, not the person or persons who would actually do the best job running this country. The media ignores all but the most in-your-face, rich candidates.
I'm disappointed that when my primary day comes around in Texas (March 4) I will not get to vote for either Kucinich or Edwards. I really would have liked that chance because I think they, of all people, would have done their best to change the status quo in Washington and listened to We, the People of the United States of America. And that's probably why they have been ignored and, eventually silenced.
Personally, I think all of the primaries and caucuses should be held on the same day throughout this country. That gives every candidate equal opportunity to be voted for, at least, and every voter the opportunity to vote for the person they think is the best candidate.
I have written, in the past, the I didn't know who I would vote for when the time comes. Unfortunately that decision has been made for me and I will vote for Obama, who I do find to be an inspiring and exciting candidate on many levels, though certainly not my first choice. I do think he will be able to bring about some change in this country.
For an interesting look at which candidates have raised the most money and from whom, here is an interesting website: www.opensecrets.org
In peace,
Amy
Wednesday, January 30, 2008
VA Benefits...
Every now and then I get an email from someone that just tears my heart out. This is one of them. Please, pass this along and let's try to help this family... Peace,
Amy-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
My son Anthony Cavett Thompson, was hurt on his second tour in Iraq. The military medical board has listed him as 100% disabled. He’s emerging from a coma in the VA hospital in Tampa and the Doctors there still have a few procedures that they want to attempt. Our problem, the government is in the process of medical retiring Anthony and if this happens, his military insurance company, Tricare will not fund the procedures that the Doctors have planned. He needs to stay an active military person until all medical treatments has been exhausted
His wife, Ivonne has written a letter addressed to our government, trying to change the government’s regulation on injured care for retired veterans. I was hoping I could call upon your group to sign a government petition regarding veteran medical benefits.
I’ve attached the link for the government letter along with his caring bridge website.
http://www.rallycongress.com/veteranhealthcare/
http://www.caringbridge.org/visit/anthonythompson
Thank you, Please forward to family, friends.
Sheila Rooney (Mom)
Wednesday, January 23, 2008
Study: False statements preceded war
All I can say is WELL, DUH! It's about friggin' time someone caught up with the times and figured this one out...
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
By DOUGLASS K. DANIEL, Associated Press Writer
Wed Jan 23, 6:43 AM ET
WASHINGTON - A study by two nonprofit journalism organizations found that President Bush and top administration officials issued hundreds of false statements about the national security threat from Iraq in the two years following the 2001 terrorist attacks.
The study concluded that the statements "were part of an orchestrated campaign that effectively galvanized public opinion and, in the process, led the nation to war under decidedly false pretenses."
The study was posted Tuesday on the Web site of the Center for Public Integrity, which worked with the Fund for Independence in Journalism.
White House spokesman Scott Stanzel did not comment on the merits of the study Tuesday night but reiterated the administration's position that the world community viewed Iraq's leader, Saddam Hussein, as a threat.
"The actions taken in 2003 were based on the collective judgment of intelligence agencies around the world," Stanzel said.
The study counted 935 false statements in the two-year period. It found that in speeches, briefings, interviews and other venues, Bush and administration officials stated unequivocally on at least 532 occasions that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction or was trying to produce or obtain them or had links to al-Qaida or both.
"It is now beyond dispute that Iraq did not possess any weapons of mass destruction or have meaningful ties to al-Qaida," according to Charles Lewis and Mark Reading-Smith of the Fund for Independence in Journalism staff members, writing an overview of the study. "In short, the Bush administration led the nation to war on the basis of erroneous information that it methodically propagated and that culminated in military action against Iraq on March 19, 2003."
Named in the study along with Bush were top officials of the administration during the period studied: Vice President Dick Cheney, national security adviser Condoleezza Rice, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, Secretary of State Colin Powell, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz and White House press secretaries Ari Fleischer and Scott McClellan.
Bush led with 259 false statements, 231 about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and 28 about Iraq's links to al-Qaida, the study found. That was second only to Powell's 244 false statements about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and 10 about Iraq and al-Qaida.
The center said the study was based on a database created with public statements over the two years beginning on Sept. 11, 2001, and information from more than 25 government reports, books, articles, speeches and interviews.
"The cumulative effect of these false statements — amplified by thousands of news stories and broadcasts — was massive, with the media coverage creating an almost impenetrable din for several critical months in the run-up to war," the study concluded.
"Some journalists — indeed, even some entire news organizations — have since acknowledged that their coverage during those prewar months was far too deferential and uncritical. These mea culpas notwithstanding, much of the wall-to-wall media coverage provided additional, 'independent' validation of the Bush administration's false statements about Iraq," it said.
___
On the Net:
Center For Public Integrity: http://www.publicintegrity.org/default.aspx
Fund For Independence in Journalism: http://www.tfij.org/
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
By DOUGLASS K. DANIEL, Associated Press Writer
Wed Jan 23, 6:43 AM ET
WASHINGTON - A study by two nonprofit journalism organizations found that President Bush and top administration officials issued hundreds of false statements about the national security threat from Iraq in the two years following the 2001 terrorist attacks.
The study concluded that the statements "were part of an orchestrated campaign that effectively galvanized public opinion and, in the process, led the nation to war under decidedly false pretenses."
The study was posted Tuesday on the Web site of the Center for Public Integrity, which worked with the Fund for Independence in Journalism.
White House spokesman Scott Stanzel did not comment on the merits of the study Tuesday night but reiterated the administration's position that the world community viewed Iraq's leader, Saddam Hussein, as a threat.
"The actions taken in 2003 were based on the collective judgment of intelligence agencies around the world," Stanzel said.
The study counted 935 false statements in the two-year period. It found that in speeches, briefings, interviews and other venues, Bush and administration officials stated unequivocally on at least 532 occasions that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction or was trying to produce or obtain them or had links to al-Qaida or both.
"It is now beyond dispute that Iraq did not possess any weapons of mass destruction or have meaningful ties to al-Qaida," according to Charles Lewis and Mark Reading-Smith of the Fund for Independence in Journalism staff members, writing an overview of the study. "In short, the Bush administration led the nation to war on the basis of erroneous information that it methodically propagated and that culminated in military action against Iraq on March 19, 2003."
Named in the study along with Bush were top officials of the administration during the period studied: Vice President Dick Cheney, national security adviser Condoleezza Rice, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, Secretary of State Colin Powell, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz and White House press secretaries Ari Fleischer and Scott McClellan.
Bush led with 259 false statements, 231 about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and 28 about Iraq's links to al-Qaida, the study found. That was second only to Powell's 244 false statements about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and 10 about Iraq and al-Qaida.
The center said the study was based on a database created with public statements over the two years beginning on Sept. 11, 2001, and information from more than 25 government reports, books, articles, speeches and interviews.
"The cumulative effect of these false statements — amplified by thousands of news stories and broadcasts — was massive, with the media coverage creating an almost impenetrable din for several critical months in the run-up to war," the study concluded.
"Some journalists — indeed, even some entire news organizations — have since acknowledged that their coverage during those prewar months was far too deferential and uncritical. These mea culpas notwithstanding, much of the wall-to-wall media coverage provided additional, 'independent' validation of the Bush administration's false statements about Iraq," it said.
___
On the Net:
Center For Public Integrity: http://www.publicintegrity.org/default.aspx
Fund For Independence in Journalism: http://www.tfij.org/
Sunday, January 20, 2008
The War in Iraq and Our Economy
I have long held that the people of our country would be more concerned about the war in Iraq if they had more of a personal interest in it. Let's say, a family member serving there in harm's way, a close friend, just someone. It's one of those out of sight, out of mind kind of things. While we, as people, may have some sort of empathy for those who are serving and their families, we just don't give it much thought as a whole because it does not have any effect on our lives.
We don't think much about the poor and the abused, either, because we are not in that situation. As long are our children and families have ample food and clothing, adequate housing and we have our cars, television sets, computers and video games, we just don't care about much else that is happening outside of our realm of existence.
But then, somehow, one day those things do creep into the lives of every day Americans and all of a sudden we DO care as we look around us and begin to ask how in the world we got into this situation.
I think this is the case now, in this election year, as the mortgage crisis heats up, as millions and millions of us are in debt overload from buying our over-priced houses, spending on our credit cards much more than we should have, taking out loan after loan for cars and boats and RV's and vacations. We have, as a whole, lived beyond our means for a long time. And now, we are going into a crisis and as we look around in our stressed out state, we are now asking what the hell happened.
Gas costs over three dollars a gallon. A gallon of milk is running three to four dollars a gallon and climbing every day. One friend told me the other day that fully twenty five percent of her income every month goes to pay for her commute to work and back. Unemployment is up five percent. That's what the "official" count is, anyway. They don't count the people who have been unemployed and run out of benefits or who are underemployed.
So now our economy is the hot topic for the candidates running for President. They are just now noticing that we are in debt over our heads, our jobs are going away faster than new ones can be created, people are foreclosing on their homes and we have runaway credit card debt. The economy has taken a front seat to the war in Iraq.
Well, here's a thought... what if we ended that despicable war or occupation? Just bring all of our troops home, bring all of the paid mercenaries that work for Blackwater home. Bring all of the Halliburton employees and all the others home. How much money would that save us? What could we do with all of that money?
It's just a thought...
Peace,
Amy
We don't think much about the poor and the abused, either, because we are not in that situation. As long are our children and families have ample food and clothing, adequate housing and we have our cars, television sets, computers and video games, we just don't care about much else that is happening outside of our realm of existence.
But then, somehow, one day those things do creep into the lives of every day Americans and all of a sudden we DO care as we look around us and begin to ask how in the world we got into this situation.
I think this is the case now, in this election year, as the mortgage crisis heats up, as millions and millions of us are in debt overload from buying our over-priced houses, spending on our credit cards much more than we should have, taking out loan after loan for cars and boats and RV's and vacations. We have, as a whole, lived beyond our means for a long time. And now, we are going into a crisis and as we look around in our stressed out state, we are now asking what the hell happened.
Gas costs over three dollars a gallon. A gallon of milk is running three to four dollars a gallon and climbing every day. One friend told me the other day that fully twenty five percent of her income every month goes to pay for her commute to work and back. Unemployment is up five percent. That's what the "official" count is, anyway. They don't count the people who have been unemployed and run out of benefits or who are underemployed.
So now our economy is the hot topic for the candidates running for President. They are just now noticing that we are in debt over our heads, our jobs are going away faster than new ones can be created, people are foreclosing on their homes and we have runaway credit card debt. The economy has taken a front seat to the war in Iraq.
Well, here's a thought... what if we ended that despicable war or occupation? Just bring all of our troops home, bring all of the paid mercenaries that work for Blackwater home. Bring all of the Halliburton employees and all the others home. How much money would that save us? What could we do with all of that money?
It's just a thought...
Peace,
Amy
Tuesday, January 15, 2008
Worry...
Just because our kids grow up, we don't stop worrying about them. Right now my daughters are 30, 25 and 21 and I worry about them every single day.
At the moment the one I'm most worried about is the one who is 25. She's really been having a tough time, mostly because of things she's done and decisions she's made that have really come back to bite her in the butt. My husband and I have spent, quite literally, tens of thousands of dollars over the last few years trying to help her so she won't be in this position again, but again she is. Now she's having to find friends who will let her borrow their couches and their bathrooms and possibly sleeping in her car. She has a job, but her housing arrangements fell through at the first of the year.
I feel I have enabled her through the years because she just doesn't seem to be getting it. Over and over again she shoots herself in the foot. I can't bail her out anymore. Some day I will not be here to help her and I need to know that she can take care of herself.
Still, it hurts and makes my physically ill. I am so worried that I hurt.
I wonder, is it my lesson to learn that I cannot fix everyone's problems?
I love her with all my heart. I only hope she knows that...
At the moment the one I'm most worried about is the one who is 25. She's really been having a tough time, mostly because of things she's done and decisions she's made that have really come back to bite her in the butt. My husband and I have spent, quite literally, tens of thousands of dollars over the last few years trying to help her so she won't be in this position again, but again she is. Now she's having to find friends who will let her borrow their couches and their bathrooms and possibly sleeping in her car. She has a job, but her housing arrangements fell through at the first of the year.
I feel I have enabled her through the years because she just doesn't seem to be getting it. Over and over again she shoots herself in the foot. I can't bail her out anymore. Some day I will not be here to help her and I need to know that she can take care of herself.
Still, it hurts and makes my physically ill. I am so worried that I hurt.
I wonder, is it my lesson to learn that I cannot fix everyone's problems?
I love her with all my heart. I only hope she knows that...
Friday, January 11, 2008
Primary Presidential Elections
Like most of the rest of the citizens of this country, I've been inundated with Presidential primary election results since the first of the year. I've been surprised by the voter turn out so far, especially because of how absolutely saturated the media has been with the candidates for the past year. Quite honestly, I'm pretty tired of it already and wish the election were tomorrow so we could just get it done and over with.
At the same time, I've been pleasantly surprised because of the voter turn out. In New Hampshire 85% of the registered voters turned out, which really is unprecedented in this country. I don't think we get even half that much in a regular election.
People are excited. There is a wide variety of candidates to choose from and the voters are taking their time to get to know each of them as well as they possibly can before making their decision.
I still haven't made a definite decision about who I'm in favor of. I know I will not be voting Republican -- which is something I did most of my life, up until the last Presidential election. Every single Republican candidate is, quite simply, off my A list...
Huckabee, a Baptist preacher who believes in the sanctity of human life -- at least whiole it's still in a woman's womb. After that, these prolifers don't give a damn about human life. Plus, the last thing this country needs is someone else from the far right wing running this country to the ground even further.
Romney, a Mormon who is prowar, but whose own sons have not served their country in the military. Sure, they served two year missions for the LDS church and they are now serving their country by working in their father's election campaign. Sorry, Mitt, doesn't cut it for me. Those boys of yours have no concept, and neither do you, of what the true cost of war is, nor do they or you have any concept of what it's like for a soldier and his/her family. Add to that, he's another "prolifer". Gag.
Don't even get me started with Guiliani whose entire campaign has been run on the backs of 9/11 and its victims, with a big dose of fear added in. What a cruel joke.
There is Ron Paul, and there are some things I like, such as his anti-war stand and his knowledge of the Constitution. But that is not enough for me to vote for him. He, too, is a "prolifer" and the decisions he has made in Texas regarding environmental issues and the like have been more in favor of the big corporations than his constituents.
On to the Democratic candidates...
I absolutely will not vote for Hillary Clinton for any reason whatsoever. You couldn't pay me enough money to do it. She is absolutely institutional Washington, inside the beltway, political insider and in the pocket of Rupert Murdoch. If she is elected, it will be business as usual, maintaining the status quo. Nothing at all whatsoever will change. Not to mention, I'm really tired of the Bush/Clinton/Bush legacy. It seems more like a royal dynasty to me than it does anything.
It's really sad, too. I really would have liked to vote for the first woman to have a credible chance at the White House. But I cannot vote for this woman. I do not have any kind of faith in her whatsoever.
I do like Barack Obama. He is the first candidate I've heard who said he would end the war, restore habeas corpus and close Guantanamo. He is the only candidate I've heard say that he would be willing to talk to the leaders of other countries -- even the ones we don't like -- and try to negotiate. Plus, he is the first man of African American descent that has a chance at the Presidency. I like that. I like his charisma and I honestly do think he would be a good leader. I like that he really does seem to represent change. However, I do not know where he stands on the other issue that is important to me -- global warming.
I like John Edwards. One of the things he did that really stands out for me is that he decided not to take money from corporations and special interest groups. He is running is campaign on a much tighter purse than the other candidates. Edwards says he will end the war in Iraq and has a plan for it (even though it's not as quickly as I would like). I like that he says he is for the working man and woman and wants to help the American Middle Class.
My favorite candidate, though, doesn't have a chance of winning, and that is Dennis Kucinich. Dennis really does represent all the things that are important to me and would be the perfect candidate. But he is far too liberal and the media does not like him at all.
Speaking of the media, is anyone else tired of the media picking their favorite candidates and running one story after another about them? They most definitely have not given all of the candidates equal air time and opportunity. I think this is really a travesty, because there are some excellent underdog candidates. Guess that's what happens when we get corporate media in our lives.
Anyway, back to my picks. If I thought Dennis had a chance of winning, I would vote for him. But he doesn't. Once again, I find myself in the position of choosing someone less than perfect for me... It will be either Obama or Edwards and right now I am leaning toward Obama.
Peace,
Amy
At the same time, I've been pleasantly surprised because of the voter turn out. In New Hampshire 85% of the registered voters turned out, which really is unprecedented in this country. I don't think we get even half that much in a regular election.
People are excited. There is a wide variety of candidates to choose from and the voters are taking their time to get to know each of them as well as they possibly can before making their decision.
I still haven't made a definite decision about who I'm in favor of. I know I will not be voting Republican -- which is something I did most of my life, up until the last Presidential election. Every single Republican candidate is, quite simply, off my A list...
Huckabee, a Baptist preacher who believes in the sanctity of human life -- at least whiole it's still in a woman's womb. After that, these prolifers don't give a damn about human life. Plus, the last thing this country needs is someone else from the far right wing running this country to the ground even further.
Romney, a Mormon who is prowar, but whose own sons have not served their country in the military. Sure, they served two year missions for the LDS church and they are now serving their country by working in their father's election campaign. Sorry, Mitt, doesn't cut it for me. Those boys of yours have no concept, and neither do you, of what the true cost of war is, nor do they or you have any concept of what it's like for a soldier and his/her family. Add to that, he's another "prolifer". Gag.
Don't even get me started with Guiliani whose entire campaign has been run on the backs of 9/11 and its victims, with a big dose of fear added in. What a cruel joke.
There is Ron Paul, and there are some things I like, such as his anti-war stand and his knowledge of the Constitution. But that is not enough for me to vote for him. He, too, is a "prolifer" and the decisions he has made in Texas regarding environmental issues and the like have been more in favor of the big corporations than his constituents.
On to the Democratic candidates...
I absolutely will not vote for Hillary Clinton for any reason whatsoever. You couldn't pay me enough money to do it. She is absolutely institutional Washington, inside the beltway, political insider and in the pocket of Rupert Murdoch. If she is elected, it will be business as usual, maintaining the status quo. Nothing at all whatsoever will change. Not to mention, I'm really tired of the Bush/Clinton/Bush legacy. It seems more like a royal dynasty to me than it does anything.
It's really sad, too. I really would have liked to vote for the first woman to have a credible chance at the White House. But I cannot vote for this woman. I do not have any kind of faith in her whatsoever.
I do like Barack Obama. He is the first candidate I've heard who said he would end the war, restore habeas corpus and close Guantanamo. He is the only candidate I've heard say that he would be willing to talk to the leaders of other countries -- even the ones we don't like -- and try to negotiate. Plus, he is the first man of African American descent that has a chance at the Presidency. I like that. I like his charisma and I honestly do think he would be a good leader. I like that he really does seem to represent change. However, I do not know where he stands on the other issue that is important to me -- global warming.
I like John Edwards. One of the things he did that really stands out for me is that he decided not to take money from corporations and special interest groups. He is running is campaign on a much tighter purse than the other candidates. Edwards says he will end the war in Iraq and has a plan for it (even though it's not as quickly as I would like). I like that he says he is for the working man and woman and wants to help the American Middle Class.
My favorite candidate, though, doesn't have a chance of winning, and that is Dennis Kucinich. Dennis really does represent all the things that are important to me and would be the perfect candidate. But he is far too liberal and the media does not like him at all.
Speaking of the media, is anyone else tired of the media picking their favorite candidates and running one story after another about them? They most definitely have not given all of the candidates equal air time and opportunity. I think this is really a travesty, because there are some excellent underdog candidates. Guess that's what happens when we get corporate media in our lives.
Anyway, back to my picks. If I thought Dennis had a chance of winning, I would vote for him. But he doesn't. Once again, I find myself in the position of choosing someone less than perfect for me... It will be either Obama or Edwards and right now I am leaning toward Obama.
Peace,
Amy
Monday, January 07, 2008
Why I Believe Bush Must Go
Nixon Was Bad. These Guys Are Worse.By George McGovern
Sunday, January 6, 2008; Page B01
As we enter the eighth year of the Bush-Cheney administration, I have belatedly and painfully concluded that the only honorable course for me is to urge the impeachment of the president and the vice president.
After the 1972 presidential election, I stood clear of calls to impeach President Richard M. Nixon for his misconduct during the campaign. I thought that my joining the impeachment effort would be seen as an expression of personal vengeance toward the president who had defeated me.
Today I have made a different choice.
Of course, there seems to be little bipartisan support for impeachment. The political scene is marked by narrow and sometimes superficial partisanship, especially among Republicans, and a lack of courage and statesmanship on the part of too many Democratic politicians. So the chances of a bipartisan impeachment and conviction are not promising.
But what are the facts?
Bush and Cheney are clearly guilty of numerous impeachable offenses. They have repeatedly violated the Constitution. They have transgressed national and international law. They have lied to the American people time after time. Their conduct and their barbaric policies have reduced our beloved country to a historic low in the eyes of people around the world. These are truly "high crimes and misdemeanors," to use the constitutional standard.
From the beginning, the Bush-Cheney team's assumption of power was the product of questionable elections that probably should have been officially challenged -- perhaps even by a congressional investigation.
In a more fundamental sense, American democracy has been derailed throughout the Bush-Cheney regime. The dominant commitment of the administration has been a murderous, illegal, nonsensical war against Iraq. That irresponsible venture has killed almost 4,000 Americans, left many times that number mentally or physically crippled, claimed the lives of an estimated 600,000 Iraqis (according to a careful October 2006 study from the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health) and laid waste their country. The financial cost to the United States is now $250 million a day and is expected to exceed a total of $1 trillion, most of which we have borrowed from the Chinese and others as our national debt has now climbed above $9 trillion -- by far the highest in our national history.
All of this has been done without the declaration of war from Congress that the Constitution clearly requires, in defiance of the U.N. Charter and in violation of international law. This reckless disregard for life and property, as well as constitutional law, has been accompanied by the abuse of prisoners, including systematic torture, in direct violation of the Geneva Conventions of 1949.
I have not been heavily involved in singing the praises of the Nixon administration. But the case for impeaching Bush and Cheney is far stronger than was the case against Nixon and Vice President Spiro T. Agnew after the 1972 election. The nation would be much more secure and productive under a Nixon presidency than with Bush. Indeed, has any administration in our national history been so damaging as the Bush-Cheney era?
How could a once-admired, great nation fall into such a quagmire of killing, immorality and lawlessness?
It happened in part because the Bush-Cheney team repeatedly deceived Congress, the press and the public into believing that Saddam Hussein had nuclear arms and other horrifying banned weapons that were an "imminent threat" to the United States. The administration also led the public to believe that Iraq was involved in the 9/11 attacks -- another blatant falsehood. Many times in recent years, I have recalled Jefferson's observation: "Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just."
The basic strategy of the administration has been to encourage a climate of fear, letting it exploit the 2001 al-Qaeda attacks not only to justify the invasion of Iraq but also to excuse such dangerous misbehavior as the illegal tapping of our telephones by government agents. The same fear-mongering has led government spokesmen and cooperative members of the press to imply that we are at war with the entire Arab and Muslim world -- more than a billion people.
Another shocking perversion has been the shipping of prisoners scooped off the streets of Afghanistan to Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and other countries without benefit of our time-tested laws of habeas corpus.
Although the president was advised by the intelligence agencies last August that Iran had no program to develop nuclear weapons, he continued to lie to the country and the world. This is the same strategy of deception that brought us into war in the Arabian Desert and could lead us into an unjustified invasion of Iran. I can say with some professional knowledge and experience that if Bush invades yet another Muslim oil state, it would mark the end of U.S. influence in the crucial Middle East for decades.
Ironically, while Bush and Cheney made counterterrorism the battle cry of their administration, their policies -- especially the war in Iraq -- have increased the terrorist threat and reduced the security of the United States. Consider the difference between the policies of the first President Bush and those of his son. When the Iraqi army marched into Kuwait in August 1990, President George H.W. Bush gathered the support of the entire world, including the United Nations, the European Union and most of the Arab League, to quickly expel Iraqi forces from Kuwait. The Saudis and Japanese paid most of the cost. Instead of getting bogged down in a costly occupation, the administration established a policy of containing the Baathist regime with international arms inspectors, no-fly zones and economic sanctions. Iraq was left as a stable country with little or no capacity to threaten others.
Today, after five years of clumsy, mistaken policies and U.S. military occupation, Iraq has become a breeding ground of terrorism and bloody civil strife. It is no secret that former president Bush, his secretary of state, James A. Baker III, and his national security adviser, Gen. Brent Scowcroft, all opposed the 2003 invasion and occupation of Iraq.
In addition to the shocking breakdown of presidential legal and moral responsibility, there is the scandalous neglect and mishandling of the Hurricane Katrina catastrophe. The veteran CNN commentator Jack Cafferty condenses it to a sentence: "I have never ever seen anything as badly bungled and poorly handled as this situation in New Orleans." Any impeachment proceeding must include a careful and critical look at the collapse of presidential leadership in response to perhaps the worst natural disaster in U.S. history.
Impeachment is unlikely, of course. But we must still urge Congress to act. Impeachment, quite simply, is the procedure written into the Constitution to deal with presidents who violate the Constitution and the laws of the land. It is also a way to signal to the American people and the world that some of us feel strongly enough about the present drift of our country to support the impeachment of the false prophets who have led us astray. This, I believe, is the rightful course for an American patriot.
As former representative Elizabeth Holtzman, who played a key role in the Nixon impeachment proceedings, wrote two years ago, "it wasn't until the most recent revelations that President Bush directed the wiretapping of hundreds, possibly thousands, of Americans, in violation of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) -- and argued that, as Commander in Chief, he had the right in the interests of national security to override our country's laws -- that I felt the same sinking feeling in my stomach as I did during Watergate. . . . A President, any President, who maintains that he is above the law -- and repeatedly violates the law -- thereby commits high crimes and misdemeanors."
I believe we have a chance to heal the wounds the nation has suffered in the opening decade of the 21st century. This recovery may take a generation and will depend on the election of a series of rational presidents and Congresses. At age 85, I won't be around to witness the completion of the difficult rebuilding of our sorely damaged country, but I'd like to hold on long enough to see the healing begin.
There has never been a day in my adult life when I would not have sacrificed that life to save the United States from genuine danger, such as the ones we faced when I served as a bomber pilot in World War II. We must be a great nation because from time to time, we make gigantic blunders, but so far, we have survived and recovered.
anmcgove@dwu.edu
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/04/AR2008010404308.html?nav=hcmoduletmv
Sunday, January 6, 2008; Page B01
As we enter the eighth year of the Bush-Cheney administration, I have belatedly and painfully concluded that the only honorable course for me is to urge the impeachment of the president and the vice president.
After the 1972 presidential election, I stood clear of calls to impeach President Richard M. Nixon for his misconduct during the campaign. I thought that my joining the impeachment effort would be seen as an expression of personal vengeance toward the president who had defeated me.
Today I have made a different choice.
Of course, there seems to be little bipartisan support for impeachment. The political scene is marked by narrow and sometimes superficial partisanship, especially among Republicans, and a lack of courage and statesmanship on the part of too many Democratic politicians. So the chances of a bipartisan impeachment and conviction are not promising.
But what are the facts?
Bush and Cheney are clearly guilty of numerous impeachable offenses. They have repeatedly violated the Constitution. They have transgressed national and international law. They have lied to the American people time after time. Their conduct and their barbaric policies have reduced our beloved country to a historic low in the eyes of people around the world. These are truly "high crimes and misdemeanors," to use the constitutional standard.
From the beginning, the Bush-Cheney team's assumption of power was the product of questionable elections that probably should have been officially challenged -- perhaps even by a congressional investigation.
In a more fundamental sense, American democracy has been derailed throughout the Bush-Cheney regime. The dominant commitment of the administration has been a murderous, illegal, nonsensical war against Iraq. That irresponsible venture has killed almost 4,000 Americans, left many times that number mentally or physically crippled, claimed the lives of an estimated 600,000 Iraqis (according to a careful October 2006 study from the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health) and laid waste their country. The financial cost to the United States is now $250 million a day and is expected to exceed a total of $1 trillion, most of which we have borrowed from the Chinese and others as our national debt has now climbed above $9 trillion -- by far the highest in our national history.
All of this has been done without the declaration of war from Congress that the Constitution clearly requires, in defiance of the U.N. Charter and in violation of international law. This reckless disregard for life and property, as well as constitutional law, has been accompanied by the abuse of prisoners, including systematic torture, in direct violation of the Geneva Conventions of 1949.
I have not been heavily involved in singing the praises of the Nixon administration. But the case for impeaching Bush and Cheney is far stronger than was the case against Nixon and Vice President Spiro T. Agnew after the 1972 election. The nation would be much more secure and productive under a Nixon presidency than with Bush. Indeed, has any administration in our national history been so damaging as the Bush-Cheney era?
How could a once-admired, great nation fall into such a quagmire of killing, immorality and lawlessness?
It happened in part because the Bush-Cheney team repeatedly deceived Congress, the press and the public into believing that Saddam Hussein had nuclear arms and other horrifying banned weapons that were an "imminent threat" to the United States. The administration also led the public to believe that Iraq was involved in the 9/11 attacks -- another blatant falsehood. Many times in recent years, I have recalled Jefferson's observation: "Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just."
The basic strategy of the administration has been to encourage a climate of fear, letting it exploit the 2001 al-Qaeda attacks not only to justify the invasion of Iraq but also to excuse such dangerous misbehavior as the illegal tapping of our telephones by government agents. The same fear-mongering has led government spokesmen and cooperative members of the press to imply that we are at war with the entire Arab and Muslim world -- more than a billion people.
Another shocking perversion has been the shipping of prisoners scooped off the streets of Afghanistan to Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and other countries without benefit of our time-tested laws of habeas corpus.
Although the president was advised by the intelligence agencies last August that Iran had no program to develop nuclear weapons, he continued to lie to the country and the world. This is the same strategy of deception that brought us into war in the Arabian Desert and could lead us into an unjustified invasion of Iran. I can say with some professional knowledge and experience that if Bush invades yet another Muslim oil state, it would mark the end of U.S. influence in the crucial Middle East for decades.
Ironically, while Bush and Cheney made counterterrorism the battle cry of their administration, their policies -- especially the war in Iraq -- have increased the terrorist threat and reduced the security of the United States. Consider the difference between the policies of the first President Bush and those of his son. When the Iraqi army marched into Kuwait in August 1990, President George H.W. Bush gathered the support of the entire world, including the United Nations, the European Union and most of the Arab League, to quickly expel Iraqi forces from Kuwait. The Saudis and Japanese paid most of the cost. Instead of getting bogged down in a costly occupation, the administration established a policy of containing the Baathist regime with international arms inspectors, no-fly zones and economic sanctions. Iraq was left as a stable country with little or no capacity to threaten others.
Today, after five years of clumsy, mistaken policies and U.S. military occupation, Iraq has become a breeding ground of terrorism and bloody civil strife. It is no secret that former president Bush, his secretary of state, James A. Baker III, and his national security adviser, Gen. Brent Scowcroft, all opposed the 2003 invasion and occupation of Iraq.
In addition to the shocking breakdown of presidential legal and moral responsibility, there is the scandalous neglect and mishandling of the Hurricane Katrina catastrophe. The veteran CNN commentator Jack Cafferty condenses it to a sentence: "I have never ever seen anything as badly bungled and poorly handled as this situation in New Orleans." Any impeachment proceeding must include a careful and critical look at the collapse of presidential leadership in response to perhaps the worst natural disaster in U.S. history.
Impeachment is unlikely, of course. But we must still urge Congress to act. Impeachment, quite simply, is the procedure written into the Constitution to deal with presidents who violate the Constitution and the laws of the land. It is also a way to signal to the American people and the world that some of us feel strongly enough about the present drift of our country to support the impeachment of the false prophets who have led us astray. This, I believe, is the rightful course for an American patriot.
As former representative Elizabeth Holtzman, who played a key role in the Nixon impeachment proceedings, wrote two years ago, "it wasn't until the most recent revelations that President Bush directed the wiretapping of hundreds, possibly thousands, of Americans, in violation of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) -- and argued that, as Commander in Chief, he had the right in the interests of national security to override our country's laws -- that I felt the same sinking feeling in my stomach as I did during Watergate. . . . A President, any President, who maintains that he is above the law -- and repeatedly violates the law -- thereby commits high crimes and misdemeanors."
I believe we have a chance to heal the wounds the nation has suffered in the opening decade of the 21st century. This recovery may take a generation and will depend on the election of a series of rational presidents and Congresses. At age 85, I won't be around to witness the completion of the difficult rebuilding of our sorely damaged country, but I'd like to hold on long enough to see the healing begin.
There has never been a day in my adult life when I would not have sacrificed that life to save the United States from genuine danger, such as the ones we faced when I served as a bomber pilot in World War II. We must be a great nation because from time to time, we make gigantic blunders, but so far, we have survived and recovered.
anmcgove@dwu.edu
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/04/AR2008010404308.html?nav=hcmoduletmv
Thursday, January 03, 2008
Can't Wait to Hear What the White People of Iowa Have To Say (strong/offensive language beware)
The Rude PunditProudly lowering the level of political discourse
1/03/2008
Can't Wait to Hear What the White People of Iowa Have to Say:
There's many, many reasons to despise the Iowa caucus. Gail Collins and Christopher Hitchens have covered the fucktardery of the entire process, a backwards ass clusterfuck of meetings where about 10-15% of the voting shit kickers of Iowa - who, we are constantly told, are kind, decent, thoughtful people, really, it's true - drink coffee, eat donuts or homemade brownies (because decent, kind farm folk make their own goddamn brownies, you urban assholes), and talk about who should be their party's nominee, voting until there's a winner in the room.
This comes after months and months of what can only be described as a kind of competitive brainwashing that enriches the local TV and radio stations (most of which are owned by giant corporations elsewhere), and makes the residents, the 90% or so of voters who don't give a flea's fart about the caucus, dread going to a downtown diner for the gut-wrenching fear they might be forced to shake hands with some damn Romney or Clinton. And the increasingly desperate-for-a-story media, who will hype anything, including the latest security cam video of a purse snatching or Paris Hilton's snatch, treat this like it's Sparta versus Athens.
Fuck Iowa, man. Fuckin' Iowa's the reason John Kerry became the nominee last year (which, by extension, means it's the reason, at least in part, that the nation is so Bush-fucked). And fuck Iowa for being so goddamn filled with its inflated sense of self-importance that its parties moved their puny damn caucus up to January 3. And fuck everyone who pumps up Iowans into believing they deserve to be kingmakers.
See, the Rude Pundit's problem with Iowa is one of demographics. Iowa's white, so very, very white, 91% white. 2.5% black, 3.8% Hispanic (not counting the number of illegal migrants who harvest in those archetypal farms). In other words, Iowa ain't us. The attention to the Iowa caucus is based on a myth of America, a lie that hasn't existed in decades, maybe even a century or two. It is a vestige of the rightness of whiteness. It ain't about the way that good, decent, hard-working blah-blah-blah American citizens think. It's about what that isolated island of white people says.
Oh, sure yeah, there's a great deal of good in citizens going to gathering places and talking about who might be the next president, no matter where it happens or who is doing it. People should do it more. But just because they do it doesn't mean it matters to anyone who isn't in that classroom or townhall or wherever. It really ain't news that "they came together on a snowy night last week to get up the courage to caucus" for Mike Huckabee. If that's what passes for courage these days, then, hell, when the Rude Pundit decides to go to the independent coffee shop instead of Starbucks, it must at least qualify for "strength of character."
Essentially, the whole nation is now forced to wait to see what the shit kickers of Iowa have to say. It's like everyone gathering around the Thanksgiving table and when stroke-victim Grandma starts to slurringly, slurpingly speak, the rest of the family grows silent to hear what she thinks of the meal. And if you agree with Grandma just because she's Grandma, goddamnit, then the Iowa caucus might be meaningful to you. But if you nod and smile and say, "That's fine, Grandma. Pass the gravy," then you are ready to grow up.
// posted by Rude One @ 9:59 AM| DiggIt!| Del.icio.us|
1/03/2008
Can't Wait to Hear What the White People of Iowa Have to Say:
There's many, many reasons to despise the Iowa caucus. Gail Collins and Christopher Hitchens have covered the fucktardery of the entire process, a backwards ass clusterfuck of meetings where about 10-15% of the voting shit kickers of Iowa - who, we are constantly told, are kind, decent, thoughtful people, really, it's true - drink coffee, eat donuts or homemade brownies (because decent, kind farm folk make their own goddamn brownies, you urban assholes), and talk about who should be their party's nominee, voting until there's a winner in the room.
This comes after months and months of what can only be described as a kind of competitive brainwashing that enriches the local TV and radio stations (most of which are owned by giant corporations elsewhere), and makes the residents, the 90% or so of voters who don't give a flea's fart about the caucus, dread going to a downtown diner for the gut-wrenching fear they might be forced to shake hands with some damn Romney or Clinton. And the increasingly desperate-for-a-story media, who will hype anything, including the latest security cam video of a purse snatching or Paris Hilton's snatch, treat this like it's Sparta versus Athens.
Fuck Iowa, man. Fuckin' Iowa's the reason John Kerry became the nominee last year (which, by extension, means it's the reason, at least in part, that the nation is so Bush-fucked). And fuck Iowa for being so goddamn filled with its inflated sense of self-importance that its parties moved their puny damn caucus up to January 3. And fuck everyone who pumps up Iowans into believing they deserve to be kingmakers.
See, the Rude Pundit's problem with Iowa is one of demographics. Iowa's white, so very, very white, 91% white. 2.5% black, 3.8% Hispanic (not counting the number of illegal migrants who harvest in those archetypal farms). In other words, Iowa ain't us. The attention to the Iowa caucus is based on a myth of America, a lie that hasn't existed in decades, maybe even a century or two. It is a vestige of the rightness of whiteness. It ain't about the way that good, decent, hard-working blah-blah-blah American citizens think. It's about what that isolated island of white people says.
Oh, sure yeah, there's a great deal of good in citizens going to gathering places and talking about who might be the next president, no matter where it happens or who is doing it. People should do it more. But just because they do it doesn't mean it matters to anyone who isn't in that classroom or townhall or wherever. It really ain't news that "they came together on a snowy night last week to get up the courage to caucus" for Mike Huckabee. If that's what passes for courage these days, then, hell, when the Rude Pundit decides to go to the independent coffee shop instead of Starbucks, it must at least qualify for "strength of character."
Essentially, the whole nation is now forced to wait to see what the shit kickers of Iowa have to say. It's like everyone gathering around the Thanksgiving table and when stroke-victim Grandma starts to slurringly, slurpingly speak, the rest of the family grows silent to hear what she thinks of the meal. And if you agree with Grandma just because she's Grandma, goddamnit, then the Iowa caucus might be meaningful to you. But if you nod and smile and say, "That's fine, Grandma. Pass the gravy," then you are ready to grow up.
// posted by Rude One @ 9:59 AM| DiggIt!| Del.icio.us|
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)