The NY Times calls for the firing of John Tanner, the chief of the Justice Department's voting section, because of the “offensive” and “bigoted” comments he made at the National Latino Congreso which I captured on video and posted at The Brad Blog:
A House Judiciary subcommittee was the site of a sad spectacle the other day: John Tanner, who heads the Justice Department’s voting section, trying to explain offensive, bigoted comments he made about minority voters. It was a shameful moment that crystallized the need for immediate steps to fight for the rights that Mr. Tanner has been working so hard to undermine.
The administration should, of course, fire Mr. Tanner. Congress should pass a bill to criminalize deceptive campaign practices. And it should reject a pending nominee to the Federal Election Commission, Hans von Spakovsky.
The Justice Department has a long history of protecting the voting rights of minorities. In the Bush administration, the department’s voting rights section has been taken over by ideologues most interested in denying the ballot to minorities, poor people and other groups likely to vote Democratic.
One hopes that with all the money the wealthiest 0.6% of Americans - who received 75% of $92 Billion in savings from Bush's generous tax policies on capital gains and dividends in 2005 - were able to get themselves a sweet second or third yacht. Of course, this is a double whammy for the other 99.4% of us who not only didn't see much benefit from Bush's tax cuts but now share in the responsibility of making up those lost revenues to the government. Some more fun stats from Citizens for Tax Justice:
*Half of all tax filers (67 million Americans) reported an adjusted gross income of less than $30,000 and received virtually NONE of the benefits from the tax cuts.
*0.6% reported incomes greater than $500,000 and received tax deductions averaging $81,204 and accounted for 73.4% of the total tax savings.
*13,776 tax filers with gross incomes greater than $10 million or 0.1% of all filers, received 28.2% of the total benefits averaging $1,876,280 each!!!!!
*The number of Americans living in extreme poverty has grown 26% since 2000. In all, 37 million Americans, or about 12% of the country, now live with “low food security,” uh, poverty.
*2 out of 5 elderly Americans live on less than $18,000 a year including social security.
*Low income Americans with disabilities experienced 50% cuts in their housing programs.
*Half of all IRS audits are now conducted on Americans making less than $25,000 per year.
For more dismal statistics on the rich poor divide see one of my earlier BRAD BLOG posts.
Thankfully Bush recognizes a problem when he sees it and before leaving on his month long vacation stressed that we need a new round of corporate tax cuts to make sure US corporations stay competitive!
In all fairness, it takes huge balls and a lot of propaganda to convince anyone that what the country needs is more corporate giveaways to the rich. That is a tall order that will require great effort by Bush. And it will be essential for him to recharge his batteries over a long vacation before the big sell. And if it means that he crushes Ronald Reagan's two term vacation record with 17 months to go in office, so be it.
Plus, nobody wants to be in the Capital during the God awful month of August when temperatures regularly hit a humid 100 degrees. Perhaps it was the heat that allowed Congressional Democrats to pass the new FISA law - which seems to get worse and worse by the day - before leaving on vacation. But Washington heat ain't nothing compared to Baghdad heat, huh, Tony Snow:
“You know, it's 130 degrees in Baghdad in August.”
Which helps explain why the Iraqi parliament is taking the month off as well. Surely our troops, a record 162,000 strong in Iraq, will get the month off too, right? I mean, one suspects that with all their gear, outdoor work and combat, the misery index (weather, though both work) would be worse for our troops than say an air-conditioned Oval Office, uh, speed boat.
Actually, while George W. Bush smashes records for vacation days our troops are getting tours of duty extended from a year to 15 months. And it is a bit odd that Bush would take off so much time right before the crucial General Petreaus report on Iraq. Especially since we are amidst:
“the inescapable calling of our generation”
Oh, I almost forgot that the greater troop levels were the result of Bush's January “Surge” plan. You might recall that the new plan came after great deliberation and partying during which time hundreds of our troops lost their lives:
Ultimately Bush decided upon following neocon Fred Kagan's (fresh off a “very cool” chinook helicopter ride over the Potomac) “Surge” plan which called for an additional 50,000 troops, uh, 35,000, no, 30,000, wait, 50,000, no, 30,000, hold on, 31,500, stop, 20,000, then 35,000, oh, let's just say more troops.
But here's the thing, while Bush and the lawmakers are getting much needed R&R, our depleted troops are dying in the heat of the Iraqi desert by the droves. Long time reporters in Iraq write about the grim picture. According to our own ambassador in Iraq, electricity in Baghdad can be counted on for “an hour or two a day” which is down from six hours earlier in the year and 16-24 hours under Saddam. Even the Brits admit the Surge will not succeed.
But none of this or the rising troop deaths can dissuade the Bushies who have already kicked up the propaganda so many notches that Emeril Lagasse must be envious. Sadly, the American people continue to buy into it. And the real big propaganda push will not hit until September.
Sadly, the truth is that there is nothing that Petraeus could say that would change the course of the war. As Eugene Robinson wrote in the Washington Post:
But if you think Bush is going to care what Petraeus's report says in September, get out of the sun immediately and drink lots of water. You're delirious.
Clearly Bush will continue this unjust, horrific war until the end of his presidency. And nothing from escalating American and Iraqi body counts to American geopolitical strategy can change his decision which was made long ago. W. has even stated that his presidency will be judged on the long term outcome of Iraq. And since pulling out or significantly reducing troops is akin to failure, Bush ain't budging. In other words, he's passing the buck to the next president.
This alone is immoral and it is patently absurd that a decision of this magnitude should rest with a man with such an obvious conflict of interest. And since everyone knows this, it is also immoral for the American people to standby and leave the decision to Bush.
And that would be true even if Bush were a moral person. The fact that he is not just makes the situation that much clearer. Lest we forget that he:
*Continues to push legislation to further enrich the super wealthy at the expense of the most needy in society.
*Imposes anti-condom policies throughout Africa which has led to a remarkable rise in HIV/AIDS.
*Signed a secret executive order authorizing the policy of “extraordinary rendition” which allows the CIA to kidnap any terror suspect from anywhere in the world and transfers them to prisons to be tortured and sometimes killed in countries like Uzbekistan and Egypt.
*Invades countries under false pretenses to further enrich the military industrial complex and his corporatist cronies.
Sick. Martin Luther King Jr. had it right when he said that “There comes a time when silence is betrayal.” How can anyone read that short list of transgressions above and not believe that time is now?
*In the end, we will remember not the words of our enemies, but the silence of our friends.
*When you are right you cannot be too radical; when you are wrong, you cannot be too conservative.
*Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.
*Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity.
*The ultimate measure of a man is not where he stands in moments of comfort and convenience, but where he stands at times of challenge and controversy.
We Americans like to think ourselves noble and a country that has done great things for the world. We stopped Hitler for crying out loud. Yes, but that was a couple of generations ago. And by remaining silent, this generation is burying the memory of the “Greatest Generation.” And our lack of action, for whatever reason, is as immoral as George W. Bush's action.
It is imperative that we wake-up to our faults and correct them before it is too late. For example, a glance at the two pictures below describe a world turned upside down by American military spending and penchant for war and killing:
Nonviolence is the answer to the crucial political and moral questions of our time; the need for mankind to overcome oppression and violence without resorting to oppression and violence. Mankind must evolve for all human conflict a method which rejects revenge, aggression, and retaliation. The foundation of such a method is love.
We Americans seem to be the only ones oblivious to our faults. The entire world has been telling us we are ill for some time. The general consensus around the globe is that the US is a greater threat to world peace than even Iran and North Korea! And our best friends, the Brits, believe that only Osama bin Laden is a greater threat to world peace than the United States.
We are a sick country whose leaders continue to exploit our weakness. And our continued silence is immoral. We sit silently while our government exchanged our leader of the free world status with leader of rogue nations lambast. And if the people will not stand up united and force our leaders to listen to our will, we will become the “infamous generation” whose silence enabled George W. Bush and the corporate elite to destroy the Republic.
Maureen Dowd has an interesting Op-Ed today about how many of her Republican family members are finally disgusted with the Bush administration and some are even ready to vote for the Democratic presidential candidate (as long as it's not Hillary). Here's a part of the column about Dowd's sister:
“W.’s loyalty to Cheney has hurt his presidency,” she says sadly. “When Cheney picked himself as vice president, W. should have said, ‘Bug off.’ He could have made his own banquet instead of choosing leftovers. If only he had dialed his father or listened to Powell instead of Cheney and Rumsfeld on Iraq. Not only has W. brought himself down, he’s brought down John McCain, who I wanted to support but can’t because of the war.
”I grew up in the shadow of Walter Reed and was used to seeing servicemen without limbs. But recently after watching a special on soldiers coming home from Iraq with brain injuries, I picked up a picture of my four nephews and I know how I would feel if they had fought in Iraq and came home without limbs or in body bags.
“We are spending billions on this war, and yet veterans and their children are practically getting nothing. I’m no longer a Republican. I’m an American, and I will cast my vote for the person I believe will start the process to get out of Iraq — unless, of course, it’s Hillary.”
Well, better late than never, right? Except, here's the catch which comes by way of the last sentence in Dowd's piece: “My sister still has her picture of W. up. But Cheney is face down in the laundry room.”
WTF people! Wake the F up. Hello disconnect. This just boggles the mind but it is also typical of diehard Republicans. Many will admit major screw ups, incompetence, criminality, the death of innocents and that our country is far worse off today than the day Bush took office. But, at the same time, they keep Bush's picture up on the wall and call you crazy if you even whisper the word impeachment.
Crazy is the right word but it's used in the wrong context. Crazy indeed.
Now that I have your attention, click your way over to Anything They Say, where Bhc has returned after a short hiatus with a powerful sweeping piece, PIPELINES AND IMPERIAL MISSIONS, on the Bushies and the Middle East that will take your breath away. I cannot remember an article so breathtaking in its scope and I read Harper's!
Bhc covers all the well-known angles and facts, starting with the now familiar 1992 Defense Planning Guide which outlines the case for American empire. Additionally, he pulls in his unparalleled knowledge of all things oil, from pipelines to the Iraqi Oil Law, which are key to understanding the Bushies foreign policy. And before all is said and done, Bhc takes readers on a tour de force of the ever important currency and commodity markets and the actions and reasoning behind moves from recently emerging powers Russia, China and Iran. And this is but a cursory view of the subjects covered in the post. Like I said, it is truly sweeping.
But, don't let the scope and length of the article scare you away. Where Bhc shines, and has always shined, is in tying so many seemingly disparate facts into one wholly readable story. By the end, what now appears to be a tangled web of unrelated stories, propaganda and political maneuvering, is unraveled into a perfect web that is supported by the facts and common sense. All of which makes it odd that this story will be entirely new to many, if not, most.
With the above in mind, those who get their news solely from the mainstream media are advised to proceed cautiously and prepare themselves to be shocked by the truth. Of course, we Americans don't much like the truth. “We'd rather be lied to about war and then get pissed about the lie than admit to why we really went there.”
Great News!!!! After seven years of suffering from Bush Derangement Syndrome - being “somewhat unhinged” because I “passionately dislike[d] the president” - I just got a clean bill of health from Peggy Noonan. It turns out that there really was no such disease. While I'm extremely happy to be deemed normal again, I'm wondering if I have a medical malpractice case against Noonan and her murderously slow kin who only now have come to realize the disaster that is George Bush. Here's the beginning of Noonan's must read column (Nixon comparisons come later) column in the WSJ:
It's been a slow week in a hot era. I found myself Thursday watching President Bush's news conference and thinking about what it is about him, real or perceived, that makes people who used to smile at the mention of his name now grit their teeth. I mean what it is apart from the huge and obvious issues on which they might disagree with him.
I'm not referring to what used to be called Bush Derangement Syndrome. That phrase suggested that to passionately dislike the president was to be somewhat unhinged. No one thinks that anymore. I received an email before the news conference from as rock-ribbed a Republican as you can find, a Georgia woman (middle-aged, entrepreneurial) who'd previously supported him. She said she'd had it. “I don't believe a word that comes out of his mouth.” I was startled by her vehemence only because she is, as I said, rock-ribbed. Her email reminded me of another, one a friend received some months ago: “I took the W off my car today,” it said on the subject line. It sounded like a country western song, like a great lament.
As I watched the news conference, it occurred to me that one of the things that might leave people feeling somewhat disoriented is the president's seemingly effortless high spirits. He's in a good mood. There was the usual teasing, the partly aggressive, partly joshing humor, the certitude. He doesn't seem to be suffering, which is jarring. Presidents in great enterprises that are going badly suffer: Lincoln, LBJ with his head in his hands. Why doesn't Mr. Bush? Every major domestic initiative of his second term has been ill thought through and ended in failure. His Iraq leadership has failed. His standing is lower than any previous president's since polling began. He's in a good mood. Discuss.
In any case, I would like to thank all those that thought of me and prayed for me during this difficult time. I'd like to think they helped me get through this difficult illness. I know as a matter of fact that I could not have pulled through this without the large community of similarly misdiagnosed liberals, progressives and even independents. Thank you all.
It may be a few days old, but this op-ed by a “longtime attorney at the U.S. Department of Justice” is still well worth a read if you haven't done so already:
As a longtime attorney at the U.S. Department of Justice, I can honestly say that I have never been as ashamed of the department and government that I serve as I am at this time.
The public record now plainly demonstrates that both the DOJ and the government as a whole have been thoroughly politicized in a manner that is inappropriate, unethical and indeed unlawful. The unconscionable commutation of I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby's sentence, the misuse of warrantless investigative powers under the Patriot Act and the deplorable treatment of U.S. attorneys all point to an unmistakable pattern of abuse.
In the course of its tenure since the Sept. 11 attacks, the Bush administration has turned the entire government (and the DOJ in particular) into a veritable Augean stable on issues such as civil rights, civil liberties, international law and basic human rights, as well as criminal prosecution and federal employment and contracting practices. It has systematically undermined the rule of law in the name of fighting terrorism, and it has sought to insulate its actions from legislative or judicial scrutiny and accountability by invoking national security at every turn, engaging in persistent fearmongering, routinely impugning the integrity and/or patriotism of its critics, and protecting its own lawbreakers. This is neither normal government conduct nor “politics as usual,” but a national disgrace of a magnitude unseen since the days of Watergate - which, in fact, I believe it eclipses.
Glenn Greenwald of Salon details the years of lies from the right about Valerie Plame's covert CIA status. In doing so, he once again reveals that the vast right wing conspiracy is alive and well. This is a MUST browse (it's long) piece as some of the examples are so over the top and heinous you wonder how these people ever show their faces in public again. Disgusting.
Can Bush recover? Fred Barnes in The Weekly Standard and Quin Hillyer in the American Spectator are not only asking the question but advising the Republican party to stand by their man. The theory, according to Barnes, is that:
the candidate of the outgoing president's party is inextricably tied to that president. It's a political connection that can't be broken. The candidate can criticize the president, try to distance himself, and snarl like the president's worst enemy. But that not only won't work, it's likely to be counterproductive. After House Republican moderates met Tuesday with Bush, they leaked to the press that they'd informed him he's damaging the party by persisting with the war in Iraq. That won't help their re-election; they're tied to the president, too. The best tactic is to build up the president, not tear him down.
Republicans like to point to Ronald Reagan's recovery in the last year of his presidency which came after Iran/Contra and resulted in Bush the elder winning the White House. So, just how will W. make his comeback? Since Barnes' credibility is suspect, having written the laughable
we'll turn to Hillyer, who sees " a chance for at least a fairly significant comeback" by way of his 4-point plan:
1. Be a patriot. Okay, them my words. Hillyer calls for an improved Iraq which patriotic Americans can make a reality by wishing "succes on the 'surge' and on the overall mission". Also, because negative talk at home emboldens al-Qaeda, patriots will "want to counteract the morale boost" and buy more time for the surge by insisting we not cut and run "but win" (no emphasis added). And if I may add, what must have been an oversight by Hillyer, please wish for a morale boost for our troops too.
2. It's the ethanol stupid. You see, Bush is not getting credit for the "phenomenally strong economy" because of the high price of gas, the predictable result of the GOP passed energy bill last year which included new expensive ethanol requirements, is "fooling the public" into believing the economy sucks. For a quick fix just suspend the new requirements. Hillyer doesn't mention why the cost of gas was so high before the bill or give ways to explain away the record number of defaults on home mortgages, the ever growing list of uninsured Americans or the dramatic increase in homelessness and poverty stricken Americans.
3. More racism. Conservatives must pick "well-framed battles" which can win votes including emphasizing English as the official language, race-based quotas and various 'quota-lite' measures. Hillyer would not want anyone to believe his recommendations racist, so he also advises using "the right non-quota-related words and actions" to evidence "sincere outreach to dispossessed communities and individuals". Isn't that sweet?
4. Democratic extremism. The "anti-military, big-government extremists" that is the "Democratic congressional leadership" has already shown a "propensity to embarrass themselves". All conservatives need to do, according to Hillyer, is sit back and (COUGH!) act responsibly. And I thought the inability of conservatives to act responsibly is how we got into this mess.
That's it. Sounds pretty simple really. In fact, Hillyer is not asking much at all outside of repealing the ethanol requirement. On Iraq he really only ask that Republicans turn their frowns upside down. Asking the GOP to be more racist is like asking Fox 'News' for more propaganda. And bullet #4 rests entirely on the Democrats. All of which might explain Hillyer's laughable final sentence about Bush which makes a mockery of his entire piece:
"And he merits some support." (emphasis added)
It also ignores the real way Bush intends to deal with his lack of popularity - with a bang, by attacking Iran.
Richard Clarke blows up one Bush/Cheney's major rationales for staying in Iraq:
Does the President think terrorists are puppy dogs? He keeps saying that terrorists will "follow us home" like lost dogs. This will only happen, however, he says, if we "lose" in Iraq.
The puppy dog theory is the corollary to earlier sloganeering that proved the President had never studied logic: "We are fighting terrorists in Iraq so that we will not have to face them and fight them in the streets of our own cities."
Remarkably, in his attempt to embrace the failed Iraqi adventure even more than the President, Sen. John McCain is now parroting the line. "We lose this war and come home, they'll follow us home," he says.
How is this odd terrorist puppy dog behavior supposed to work? The President must believe that terrorists are playing by some odd rules of chivalry. Would this be the "only one slaughter ground at a time" rule of terrorism?
Well, in their defense, the GOP base that continues to support Bush/Cheney despite their best efforts to destroy this country, are basically lapdogs. Maybe they just have dogs on their minds.
SUBSCRIBE
By subscribing to the blog you can get updates delivered to your desktop, web browser or email without visiting the hotpotatomash website.
