Iraq: Media Should Focus Americans on the Reality

Iraq: Media Should Focus Americans on the Reality

"Iraq now faces many key issues that could tear the country apart, from the issues of Kirkuk and Mosul to that of religious law. James Zogby on Wolf Blitzer wisely warned the US public against another "Mission Accomplished" moment. Things may gradually get better, but this flawed "election" isn't a Mardi Gras for Americans and they'll regret it if that is the way they treat it."

- Juan Cole

The cheerleading in the media is misleading America about the reality on the ground in Iraq. Take a look at Juan Cole's blog entry about the reports coming in about yesterday's elections in Iraq.

Another dose of simple reality from director of a Washington think tank, Robert Weiner Public Affairs:

".. when we accept the reality of the low turnout, we will be better able to protect against the possibility that the elections will be like the war: the insurgents only committed minimal violence at the outset -- and then logarithmically increased their efforts afterward. In this case, because of the U.S. protection of the polling places, the insurgents effectively conceded; but now they could very likely go after all the hundreds of winning candidates as well as keep up their widespread violence. The possibility of civil war in Iraq remains strong -- we must not once again count our chickens too soon. This overriding instability and threat of attacks, which we have tried but not succeeded in stopping, is of course the reason for the low turnout, and the crisis continues."

In the Arab news, a plea for President Bush to finally get the international community on board (and stop bowing to the military wishes of dependent and needy Iraqis) :

"There could be a workable UN peacekeeping operation in Iraq, but first the Iraqis have to badly want it and second, the richer nations of the world have to properly fund it and man a good portion of it."

A few mainstreamers are keeping it real.

For example, Fareed Zakaria, a pundit at ABC News, reminds us that Elections are not "Democracy".

U.S. ENCOURAGED BY VOTE

U.S. ENCOURAGED BY VOTE
Officials Cite Turnout Despite Terror

The headline sounds really promising, doesn't it?

Great voter turnout despite the fear of terror.

It just so happens to have been written by Peter Grose in 1967.

About Vietnam.

When will we ever learn?

As history will show you, the mainstream media was not all that "liberal", even at the height of the civil rights/Vietnam era:

The Johnson administration sponsored "demonstration elections" in Vietnam in 1966 and 1967 to show that we were respecting the will of the Vietnamese people. Although that country was occupied by a foreign army (U.S.) and otherwise thoroughly militarized, free speech and freedom of the press were non-existent, and not only the only "mass-based political party" (NLF) but all "neutralists" were barred from participation, the New York Times took these elections seriously. Their news reports stressed the heavy turnouts, and the editorials noted the "popular support" shown by the peasants willingness "to risk participation in the election held by the Saigon regime" (ed., September 4, 1967). In both news and editorials the paper suggested that the elections might lead to peace, because by legitimizing the generals it "provides a viable basis for a peace settlement." As the whole point of the exercise was to keep in place leaders who would fight, this was promotional deception of the worst sort.

A Daily Kos reader has found a CIA discussion about the 1967 pre-election period. Take a look. Draw parallels to Iraq if you'd like. If you ask me, you can't help but draw parellels.

See LBJ's letter to Saigon in telegram 34017, September 8. (National Archives and Records Administration, RG 59, Central Files 1967-69, POL 15-1 VIET S).

"I have just received a detailed and most moving account of your election from the distinguished Americans whom you invited to Viet-Nam as observers. They returned believing in the fairness of the procedures and observed the intense interest of the Vietnamese people in this major step toward creating your own popularly chosen and constitutionally based government. Their individual reports were a testimonial to the courage and determination of the Vietnamese people to remain free and to create their own political institutions in their own way. The election was a milestone along the path toward the goal you have set for yourselves--a free, secure and peaceful Viet-Nam. But it is not the end of the journey. Many hard tasks remain. Not the least of these now is the creation of a strong, effective and broadly based government that will help you and your country achieve the objectives you set forth in your campaign. The American government and I, personally, look forward to continued close cooperation with you and your colleagues in the days and months ahead.."

Sound familiar?


At the American Street, Neil Shah says:

"What really made the South Vietnamese struggle in their battle to fend off the communist block in the North, was their ineffectiveness in crafting a government that was actually answerable to the people. Plagued by mind-boggling levels of government corruption and led by self-concerned and illegitimate leaders, there was never any real effort to establish a stable democratic state by a significant portion of SV’s themselves, despite countless efforts by the U.S. The significance for Iraq is that it will have to face many obstacles, including the current insurgency and the likelihood of communal violence, to actually establish a viable state (read: monopoly on means of violence) and that its success will depend more on Iraqis themselves than anything that can be done by the U.S."

Based upon what I've seen so far in Iraq, I don't think a sufficient number of the people have the drive and courage it currently takes to turn this into a sustained or successful Iraqi-based democratic revolution.

There is no doubt, we saw courage in the ones who voted yesterday, yet we also know how many Iraqis chose not to vote due to a feeling of injustice, the appearance of U.S. occupation, political dissent, and mistrust.

Don't expect me to opine a la "pie in the sky" about the glory of newfound determination in these people. We have not been able to train enough of them to adequately defend themselves against field mice, let alone sophisticated insurgents. Iraqi troops run at the slightest provocation. They are going to need the support and force of the world community for decades to come.

If President Bush fails to call upon the international community now, with humility, then you can expect our military to be misused and at grave risk for decades to follow.


UPDATE/9pm: See truthout.com's feature by William Rivers Pitt - The Story of the Ghost


*A tip of the hat to William Bollinger, who made me aware of this story.

'Just Say No' To Gonzales

'Just Say No' To Gonzales

I oppose the confirmation of Alberto Gonzales for one main reason:

I believe that a vote for the confirmation of Mr. Gonzales would be a vote to marginalize the slap to the face of the Rule of Law, in light of the Abu Ghraib 'torture memo'. It would be like saying that the torture just didn't matter, in the long run.

The world is watching us from a distance, but the world is not such a large place these days. We have seen how the distance has closed in upon us. We remember the morning of September 11th, 2001. Let's show the world we still have a soul, even after what we faced on 9/11, as a nation of decent and civil people.

Vote "NO" to Gonzales' confirmation!

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The following is a statement which appears today on the main page at the Liberal Coalition website:

The Liberal Coalition opposes the nomination of Alberto Gonzales as Attorney General. As individual bloggers, many of us have written our own statements against the nomination; links to those posts are below. Promoting the man who authorized the use of torture to the nation's highest law enforcement position makes a mockery of that position and the notion that the U.S. is a nation of laws. His confirmation will signal that the United States can no longer be viewed as a champion for human rights and will diminish its ever-shrinking credibility on human rights issues.

Presidents are traditionally given a lot of leeway when it comes to their attorney general nominees. But extraordinary times call for extraordinary measures. If authorizing torture does not cross that line, nothing will. We urge the Senate to vote no on Gonzales.

Archy
Bark Bark Woof Woof
Dohiyi Mir
Echidne of the Snakes
EdwardPig
First Draft
Iddybud
Left is Right
Make Me a Commentator
Rook's Rant
rubber hose
Scrutiny Hooligans
Steve Gillard (link is to the original statement on Kos to which Steve is a signatory)
Words on a Page
Yellow Doggerel Democrat

This post has been submitted to the no to Gonzales site.

LINK-Original Post by upyernoz

What We've Purchased

What We've Purchased
With Our Treasure, Our Life, and Blood

Ignatieff Employs Fantasy-Shame to Belittle Iraq Naysayers

Ignatieff Employs Fantasy-Shame to Belittle Iraq Naysayers

Michael Ignatieff ("Apostle of He-manitarianism") has written a piece for today's New York Times magazine that reflects a Bushworld view of today's election in Iraq. He plays the role of Daddy scolding the bad, bad liberals who see the sham-election as any less than a glorious exercise. (How COULD they?!?)

The article's called The Uncommitted. (He should be 'committed' for having written it).

Warning: If you're looking at matters with any kind of realistic focus, you'll wind up either laughing hysterically, puking, or throwing the magazine directly into the trashbin.

I wish Kerry had supported Kennedy

I wish Kerry had supported Kennedy

Senator Ted Kennedy was one of John Kerry's strongest supporters and campaigners in 2004.

On this morning's Meet The Press, I would have liked to have seen Sen. John Kerry give his full support to the ideas which Senator Ted Kennedy had shared in a speech last week, suggesting we send 12,000 troops home here and now, in order to show the Arab nations that we mean what we say [when we say we are not occupiers.] There is solid truth to what Senator Kennedy was saying in that speech.

Senator Kerry elected to politically separate himself from Senator Kennedy on the issue of Iraq, emitting that "waffling" attitude that has harmed him in his political past.

I don't think it will win any political points for Sen Kerry with the true progressives of his party.

Part of Karl Rove's "genius" in Campaign 2004, if you ask me, was using adequately offensive rhetoric (and getting it out to mainstream media)in order to get the Democrats to scramble to respond defensively, thus revealing/exposing their non-united front on the issue of National Security and foreign policy.

I wish Senator Kerry would have been more firmly supportive of senior Massachusetts Senator Kennedy today. The Democrats still haven't learned.

You'll hear a lot about 'fantastic Iraqi voter turnout' in the mainstream media today. While that may be true in regards to Iraq's Kurd population and more-secure Shi'ite-majority locations (the people and places who stand to politically gain the most), there were polls in some towns that not even opened at the set time; many unvisited due to either fear or sheer protest. This election was a sham, albeit a smart-looking symbolic move toward Bush-propaganda's version of "freedom".

According to an Aljazeera.com report, there was low turnout in polling places such as Baghdad, Baquba and Samarra, which could have been prevented if there had been more time to create "a genuine election".

This statement is from a Muslim scholar - not a violent insurgent:

"The elections are not a solution to the Iraqi problem, because this problem is not an internal dispute to be resolved through accords and elections … it lies in the presence of a foreign power that occupies this country and refuses even the mere scheduling of the withdrawal of its forces from Iraq", [Muhammad Al-Kubaysi/AMS spokesman] said.

Al-Kubaysi said AMS believed political consensus among Iraqi parties could only be reached once the foreign military presence left the country and all parties had to rely on debate rather than force of arms.

"We have consistently argued that elections can only occur in a democracy that enjoys sovereignty. Our sovereignty is incomplete. Our sovereignty is usurped by foreign forces that have occupied our land and hurt our dignity."

Asked whether the influential group was looking to upset a transition to democracy by rejecting elections, al-Kubaysi replied: "These elections … are a means of establishing the foreign forces in Iraq and keeping Iraq under the yoke of occupation … they should have been postponed."

I consider Senator Kennedy's suggestion to be realistic and made in utmost good faith and judgement.

The sham is complete.

Let's start moving some of those troops away from where they've never belonged, and aim them toward home, where they've always belonged.

Enjoy the Propaganda Today - Remember Tomorrow Will Arrive

"Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable."

– John F. Kennedy

(It was not the U.S.'s place to spark or to aid a violent revolution in Iraq - or battling the resistance we knew would come. After the smoke and mirrors are cleared, we have come to understand that this was the real goal of our nation in our occupation of Iraq.
The Bush administration must be made accountable for their lies to the American people).


Enjoy the Propaganda Today - Remember Tomorrow Will Arrive

Today's news seems like an an endless video stream of hands dipping ballots into boxes followed by raised purple fingers. On a day when we are seeing maximum propaganda about an election in a land where democracy's been promoted by bombs and guns and U.S. occupation, we come to understand that authentic democratic revolutions (producing meaningful reform) must be sparked by the hearts of the people of the nation that is being changed. Could the Iraqis have achieved this on their own? Of their own free will? Not a chance. To this day, we cannot spark enough Iraqi fortitude for the "guts-n-glory" attitude that's necessary to maintain a "free Iraq". Look at the Iraqi security forces (Ahnold would call them "girly-men") who run at the first sign of danger!

What we are seeing is a violent and manufactured revolution waged by America on behalf of a foreign (hoped-for) power. The Bush administration created a violent revolution on behalf of the Iraqi people, while lying to the American people about the "national-security" reason our military was being used. President Bush deserves no less than impeachment for what he has done to the American people.

What was manufactured will become real. There will be a new Iraqi elected government as of tonight (or whenever the results are complete). And Monday will arrive. There will be freshly-elected shooting targets for insurgents who are determined to prove that violent revolutions created by foreign governments do not meet peaceably with reality.

I was reading an article at LeMonde Diplomatique titled Ukraine: the practice of protest. The truth it contains is an appropriate topic for a day like today. It reminds us that very little altruism can truly be expected from governments. It makes Bush's “Greater Middle East” policy suspect. While the project allegedly aims to “bring democracy” to the region, it has few chances of finding local allies given the level of animosity toward the US and its policies in both Palestine and Iraq.

The article states, and I agree, that it's wrong to claim that mass protests can be imported from abroad, whether we're talking a violent OR non-violent revolution. The decision to follow the politicians in one's nation, or not, must be taken by the people.

I am reminded of the real and earnest foreign-policy success of President Clinton's administration, along with the blessing and participation of the international community, which was well-proven in Serbia, 2000 (after bombs failed to produce real democracy):

From the article:

The recipe for non-violent revolution had been perfected in Belgrade. In 1999 Nato’s bombardment of Serbia failed; the US and the European Union decided to overthrow Slobodan Milosevic, which they did in the presidential elections of September 2000. Milosevic, convicted of electoral fraud, faced powerful, carefully organised demonstrations. A few skilfully prepared ingredients and a year of preparations were more effective than bombs.

Once success was certain in Belgrade, the sky was the limit for the Georgian opposition and activist movement. They made contacts in Serbia, went to look and borrowed the recipe. It worked, thanks in no small part to several million dollars from US organisations (the cold war was not yet over). Even so, these revolutions, inspired by Gandhian tactics or by the uprisings of the 1990s in eastern Europe, were more than a matter of manipulation. To believe that would imply ignorance of the social and historical context of the countries.

How different than what we're seeing today in Iraq.

9/11 allowed a mistaken and misleading administration to lead the fearful and shocked U.S. in the wrong direction. Deliberately and decisively.

A sham, I'm sad to say. By acting as de facto revolutionaries on behalf of Iraq, and by setting up these sham elections, we have eliminated the opportunity for dissenting Iraqi citizens to peacefully revolt.

We have created the perfect atmosphere for decades of civil unrest and violence in a land about which our President resorted to lying to the American people in order to spark manufactured (violent/radical) revolution there.

When Bush taunted "Bring it on", he meant it. He knew what he was saying, even if he has now apologized for it.

God help America. I'm convinced we have a mad dog as our President.

Ernest Goes to Auschwitz

Ernest Goes to Auschwitz

"At yesterday's gathering of world leaders in southern Poland to mark the 60th anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz, the United States was represented by Vice President Cheney. The ceremony at the Nazi death camp was outdoors, so those in attendance, such as French President Jacques Chirac and Russian President Vladimir Putin, were wearing dark, formal overcoats and dress shoes or boots. Because it was cold and snowing, they were also wearing gentlemen's hats. In short, they were dressed for the inclement weather as well as the sobriety and dignity of the event.


The vice president was dressed in the kind of attire one typically wears to operate a snow blower."

Will Muslim States Unite Against West?

Will Muslim States Unite Against West?

Here's an extremely interesting and timely report from PINR/Yevgeny Bendersky, titled ''Lines in the Sand: Western State Building in the Muslim World''.

Excerpt:

"..If the world's current dependence on oil continues to grow -- as recent reports about China's oil consumption seem to indicate -- many Muslim states will assume greater clout in world affairs, making it harder to treat each of them separately as distinct "identities" vis-à-vis other states.

The latest developments in the "war on terrorism" point to unifying movements in the Islamic world, either with Iran's help or under the banner of al-Qaeda and its allies -- a more coordinated attack on Western principles and Western interests in the Muslim world that cut across the religious and ethnic divides. While U.S. efforts in Iraq have faltered since 2003, the January 30 Iraqi election following a relatively successful election in Afghanistan will prove to be one of the turning points in the development of the Islamic world, which will either accept and foster the Western model and emerge as a collection of distinct and friendly states, or will finally break under the pressure of Iran and al-Qaeda and begin to emerge as a unified religious, political and military entity, heralding a new chapter in world history."

Hersh: US Government Taken Over By Cult

Hersh: US Government Taken Over By Cult

Sy Hersh says we've been taken over by a cult. Read the transcript of Mr. Hersh's recent appearance at the Stephen Wise Free Synagogue in New York.

Excerpt:

"...we are been taken over basically by a cult, eight or nine neo-conservatives have somehow grabbed the government. Just how and why and how they did it so efficiently, will have to wait for much later historians and better documentation than we have now, but they managed to overcome the bureaucracy and the Congress, and the press, with the greatest of ease. It does say something about how fragile our Democracy is. You do have to wonder what a Democracy is when it comes down to a few men in the Pentagon and a few men in the White House having their way. What they have done is neutralize the C.I.A. because there were people there inside -- the real goal of what Goss has done was not attack the operational people, but the intelligence people. There were people -- serious senior analysts who disagree with the White House, with Cheney, basically, that's what I mean by White House, and Rumsfeld on a lot of issues, as somebody said, the goal in the last month has been to separate the apostates from the true believers. That's what's happening. The real target has been "diminish the agency." I'm writing about all of this soon, so I don't want to overdo it, but there's been a tremendous sea change in the government. A concentration of power."

What I Heard About Iraq

What I Heard About Iraq

Read this. Don't miss it. Written by Eliot Weinberger, whose '9/12' is published by Prickly Paradigm, it's destined to become a blogger's classic.

*A tip of the hat to Mathew Gross for pointing out the way.

Iraq's Election: Beyond the Rhetoric

Iraq's Election: Beyond the Rhetoric

The Iraq election is a sham. Many will not take part in the elections - not from fear, but because they're seen as phoney. Some say Iraqi democrats can't win in this desperate election. It's no wonder many see the elections as fake. [Only 10%] Of Iraqi expatriates, some not even citizens of Iraq, have begun Iraqi voting in the U.S. With a couple days to go, some Iraqis are asking: "What election?"

In other areas of Iraq, realistic Iraqis are getting ready for the worst. They've seen nothing but chaos, frustration and extreme violence as Iraq readies for this election.

Iraq is certainly no festival of democracy. It's more a travesty of democracy. Even in Baghdad, election security is terribly unsure. Iraqi forces, who run away at the first sign of danger, are expected to do little to stop election day violence. The violent intimidation campaign has nearly paralyzed Baghdad.

Meanwhile, George W. Bush continues to obscure his Iraq Quagmire.

Senator Ted Kennedy wants the troops to get back home.

On last night's NIGHTLINE episode, there was a televised townhall meeting at a church in D.C., (with staged questions). They called it "Iraq-Why Stay?" Ted Koppel moderated. Joseph Wilson laid out a wonderfully rational plan for the future of our disengagement from Iraq. I hope someone's listening. I know our President's administration abhors Joseph Wilson. He's on to their sham and trickery, you see, and he makes his knowlege loud and clear. They wouldn't have exposed Wilson's wife, Valerie Plame, as CIA - a wicked, cruel, and traitorous act - if they didn't want revenge for the SOTU/yellowcake incident. Wilson reminded the town hall audience that the only reason we should ever commit our Armed Forces to war is to protect America from imminent national security threats. And that is NOT what we are doing in Iraq today. By the Bush administration's arrogance, they will ignore the good advice of men like Wilson and gravely injure America in the process, by weakening and abusing the military. This, my friends, is the kind of leadership we have today.

_________________

*For those of you who saw last night's Nightline's so-called "town hall meeting" and heard a man shouting at the end, I have found out who he was and what he was saying!
See his own accounting here.

Excerpt:

I started chanting "GULF WAR SYNDROME" over and over again, very loudly so it filled the church and drown out Ted Koppel.

He replied, "I am sure I have no idea what you're taking about"

and I yelled, "It's about Depleted Uranium!"

Then I shut up, and he finished his closing and it was over.

As I was waiting to filter out with everybody else, I heard one of the Iraqi's, who was very upset, talking to a producer: "This is not what we expected, we were told we would get a chance to speak in the press release you sent us, and you did not give us the chance to say what we came to say."

Losing Feith

Losing Feith

Douglas Feith, one of the men highly responsible for our being in the Iraq-mess we are in today, will be leaving the DoD in six months. It couldn't happen soon enough for me.

"Someone" must have "something" on him. Something he may not be able to deny. Something incriminating, I'd guess.

Don't ask me what - I'm only guessing. Maybe he's just "damaged goods" after the implication of his involvement with Larry Franklin and the security disaster in Iraq. Sy Hersh's recent allegations certainly couldn't have helped to boost Feith's PR. It takes a major uncovering of impropriety and an elephant-sized monkey wrench to unloose the feithful..er, faithful.. from the Bush Administration these days. It seems it's been done, though.

See Laura Rozen's comments HERE and HERE.

Spongebob vs. the Missionary-Position

Spongebob vs. the Missionary-Position

Spongebob and the missionary position?!?
What could they possible have in common, you ask?

They both appear in a clever piece by SFGate columnist Mark Morford.

Excerpts:

"Note the people who look at hilarious children's cartoons and see only sinister mind control, who look at their fellow human souls and see only an army of debauched heathens, who look (reluctantly) at their own genitals and see only a gnarled clump of pain and confusion, who look up at the beautiful blue sky and see only a massive canopy of daggers.

How incredibly sad. And, for right now, how very, insidiously dangerous...[..]

[..]....They have jammed a black seed of paranoia and dread into the tired soil of American consciousness, and have made it their lifelong duty to ensure that the seed festers and erupts into a gnarled weed of hate and ignorance and bad missionary-position sex with the lights off."

Flip Flopping On The Definition of ‘Freedom’

Flip Flopping On The Definition of ‘Freedom’

The Bush administration’s had a lot of explaining to do about their meaning of “freedom”, the one little word which speechwriters had sprinkled throughout the President’s January 20th inaugural speech, leading to a lot of big questions. Washington Post columnist EJ Dionne says: “You can spin a lot of things. Freedom shouldn’t be one of them.” LINK

The day after the inaugural address, the White House basically said they didn’t really mean what we may have thought they’d meant when President Bush talked about the expansion of “freedom”. They went on to try to explain what they did mean, which in reality, had little to do with the bold speech itself. Dionne calls it the “Freedom Shuffle”. The uncertainty, after sounding oh-so certain and determined, can only increase political division in America and enhance further mistrust amongst foreign nations, according to Dionne. When it depends upon what the definition of “freedom” is on any given day, the President makes it easy for anyone to easily doubt his intent and tenacity in standing up for whatever he thinks the word means. We are only left to scratch our heads and wonder. Dionne says:

The younger Bush’s Freedom Shuffle — he’s an idealist on Thursday and a realist on Friday — may come as a relief to the many foreign policy specialists allergic to grand visions. A majority of Americans will be pleased with the elder Bush’s reassurance that the speech does not mean “newly asserted military forces.”

But the Freedom Shuffle is a terrible mistake for Bush, because the greatest barrier to Bush’s success in his second term is the intense cynicism he has inspired about his motives. This cynicism affects the near majority that voted against him at home but also a vast number of citizens in nations around the world that were once American allies. It is a cynicism that, if it spreads further through the Muslim world, could doom the very best aspirations of Bush’s policy.

Bush supporters see this cynicism as mean-spirited. In fact, it is the bitter fruit of bitter experience. A war originally justified in the name of ridding the world of weapons of mass destruction is transformed with some well-chosen phrases into — presto! — an episode in the long struggle for freedom. The shifting rationale is never acknowledged. His disquisition on this struggle did not even mention the central theater of battle in Iraq. No need to mire grand dreams in grim realities. A nation that should be the world’s leading advocate of human rights gets caught up in a torture scandal, and the president has yet to hold himself or high officials accountable for this deep stain on his country’s reputation.

Bush's Vision of America Will Mean TYRANNY

Bush's Vision of America Will Mean TYRANNY
James Madison would spin like chicken rotisserie in his grave if he knew.

Read the selected quotes below.
James Madison sternly and solemnly warned against concentration of power in all branches of government.
There stands an elected majority in both the House and Senate. (Elected or not, heed Madison's warning from Federalist 47).
We can safely predict President Bush's political intent, should a Supreme Court seat (or two or three) become vacant in the near future. (Did you get a good look at the Chief Justice at the inauguration? I don't think it will be long.)
How can the President expect any of us to believe his rhetoric about fighting tyranny when he plans to create the perfect opportunity for tyranny to reign Supreme (pun intended) in his own country?

QUOTE ONE:

"The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, selfappointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny..[..]..From these facts, by which Montesquieu was guided, it may clearly be inferred that, in saying ``There can be no liberty where the legislative and executive powers are united in the same person, or body of magistrates,'' or, ``if the power of judging be not separated from the legislative and executive powers..where the WHOLE power of one department is exercised by the same hands which possess the WHOLE power of another department, the fundamental principles of a free constitution are subverted''

--James Madison, Federalist No 47, February 1, 1788

QUOTE TWO:

"President Bush has indicated he favors nominating justices with a strict constructionist view of the Constitution, a judicial philosophy generally regarded as anti-abortion. Mr. Bush has said he favors a justice in the mold of the high court's strongest conservatives, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas."

--Andrew J. Baroch, Voice of America, 26 November 2004

QUOTE THREE:

"So it is the policy of the United States to seek and support the growth of democratic movements and institutions in every nation and culture, with the ultimate goal of ending tyranny in our world...[..]..All who live in tyranny and hopelessness can know: the United States will not ignore your oppression, or excuse your oppressors."

--George W. Bush, Second Inaugural Address, January 20, 2005

In his inaugural speech last week, President Bush said there could be no justice without freedom.

Heed my warning.
There can be only an end to freedom with Bush' plans for the future of the Supreme Court.

Be prepared for four years of tyranny in your own country, America. The only oppressors the Bush administration will ignore, apparently, is the Bush administration.

"An ELECTIVE DESPOTISM was not the government we fought for; but one which should not only be founded on free principles, but in which the powers of government should be so divided and balanced among several bodies of magistracy, as that no one could transcend their legal limits, without being effectually checked and restrained by the others."

----James Madison, Federalist No. 48, February 1, 1788

Kevin Sites: Tsunami Stories

Mannequin in tsunami wreckage. image: Kevin Sites

Kevin Sites: Tsunami Stories

Kevin Sites' latest blog reporting from the Tsunami zone is a must-read.

Excerpt from "Black Plastic" by Kevin Sites:

Mohammed picks up a photo album. It's covered with mud -- the pictures inside ruined. All the years of memories destroyed like the lives they depicted.

A few feet away is an inflated life jacket. I wonder whether if the force of the wave ripped it from the person who was wearing it or whether they cven had a chance to put it on.

The Indonesian soldiers who are recovering bodies here have run out of latex gloves. They improvise by tying black plastic bags around their hands to do mortuary work on a scale they likely never dreamed of.

Universal Press Syndicate Will Harbor Bush Shill Maggie Gallagher

Universal Press Syndicate Will Harbor Bush Shill Maggie Gallagher

Universal Press Syndicate explains why they'll keep Maggie Gallagher.

They hype themselves as having "The best opinions in the universe." Instead, they should call it "the best opinions the Bush administration can purchase."

I'll never trust any of their journalism from here on in. Ted Rall should remove himself from this creepy group as soon as he can. Run, Ted. Run.

Torture:The New Casual Topic

"It's not nice to fool Mother Nature Uncle Sam!...If you think it's butter torture and it's not...it's Chiffon Al Gonzales' acceptable form of interrogation!"

Torture: The New Casual Topic

Tom Tomorrow makes a comically astute point about the new/cavalier (almost breezy) attitude toward the topic of torture. He titles his latest cartoon "How Low Can We Go? The Disturbingly Brief Journey From Unthinkable to Mundane"
Arlen Specter's performance in the Al Gonzales nomination hearing comes to mind...his casual questioning about the "ticking bomb" scenario, in particular. (*Someone's watching waaay too much "24").

________________

James Wolcott says 'Just Say NO' to Gonzales nomination

At Daily Kos, they're telling us that Gonzales has pointed out the Convention Against Torture treaty, as ratified by the Senate, which doesn't prohibit the use of "cruel, inhuman or degrading" tactics on non-U.S. citizens who are captured abroad, in Iraq or elsewhere..Gonzales, White House counsel and a close Bush adviser, described recent reports of prisoner abuse as "shocking and deeply troubling." But he refused to answer questions from senators about whether interrogation tactics witnessed by FBI agents were unlawful..." LINK to News Story-San Jose Mercury

Proposal to Democrats: Disband!

Proposal to Democrats: Disband!

My idea? Nope.
If you're wondering, I didn't propose this.
It's crossed my mind many times lately, though.
I'll bet it's crossed yours, too.
Do you think it's a harsh suggestion?
I don't know....
It was absolutely revolting to hear Sen. John McCain categorizing Dems who would stand up for truth and vote proudly against Condi Rice as "sore losers". (And getting away with it. CNN and FOX are replaying it ad nauseum).

I believe the real losers are the ones who willingly ignore reality for their own cheap political gain. Losers come in Red and Blue; Elephant and Donkey. I'm not being partisan here.

This post is for the Donkeys who refuse to stand up for reality and sell their supporters out at almost every opportunity. Shame on them!

At The American Street, Emma has decided to put it up for public discussion.

I think Emma's "DISBAND" suggestion isn't a bad one.

Seeing how few of the Dems actually stood their ground and voted a resounding "NO" for a woman who lied, bold-faced, to the public about a war into which our nation should never have entered is revolting. If Democrats are so easily intimidated by GOP hacks tossing around terms such as "un-American", they aren't representing those Americans whom they are charged with the duty of representing. The word "worthless" comes to mind.

Someone commented that a proposal of this type is barely necessary. Why propose to have them disband? The Democrats, by their abandonment of duty to the left and even many moderate Democrats, are systematically destroying themselves - and the success of the American system of government hoped for by the nation's Founders.

*An Alternative Idea?
"How about we just shake up the management and put a fighter in charge. Maybe a loud-mouthed Governor from New england or something?"
--Comment by 'Fast Eddie' at American Street