legacy?

Posted on Sunday 2 September 2007


Mr. Bush acknowledged one major failing of the early occupation of Iraq when he said of disbanding the Saddam Hussein-era military, "The policy was to keep the army intact; didn’t happen." But when Mr. Draper pointed out that Mr. Bush’s former Iraq administrator, L. Paul Bremer III, had gone ahead and forced the army’s dissolution and then asked Mr. Bush how he reacted to that, Mr. Bush said, "Yeah, I can’t remember, I’m sure I said, ‘This is the policy, what happened?’ " But, he added, "Again, Hadley’s got notes on all of this stuff," referring to Stephen J. Hadley, his national security adviser.
[see also Steve Clemmons] 
Seems like Bush and Rove are both into legacy issues. Rove’s 4th grade essay [below] at least has themes in the paragraphs, absurd though they might be. In Bush’s discussions, he evokes the Alberto Gonzales Rule – "I can’t remember," then he says "Hadley’s got notes." What’s unmentioned is that if he follows his current protocol, Hadley’s notes won’t be available – Executive Privilege and all. The George W. Bush Presidential Library is going to be interesting. It will be filled with papers that can’t be seen – except for Laura’s Thanksgiving menus and the holiday Barney videos.

Barring perhaps Nero, never has so much that mattered been handled with such a cavalier attitude. My guess is that the only time the word "legacy" will be applied to George W. Bush will be like in college frat lingo, "he was a legacy," meaning his dad was an alumni. George W. Bush doesn’t recall what’s happened in his Presidency. Why should we? Hopefully, history will be able to record that we were ultimately able to recover…
Mickey @ 8:20 PM

guess…

Posted on Sunday 2 September 2007

… who said this?
 

President Bush will be viewed as a far-sighted leader who confronted the key test of the 21st century.

He will be judged as a man of moral clarity who put America on wartime footing in the dangerous struggle against radical Islamic terrorism.

Following the horrors of 9/11, this president changed American foreign policy by declaring terror sponsors responsible for the deeds of those they shelter, train, and fund. America, he said, will not wait until dangers fully materialize with attacks on our homeland before confronting those threats.

The president gave the nation new tools to defeat terrorism abroad and protect our citizens at home with the Patriot Act, foreign surveillance that works in the wireless age, a transformed intelligence community, and the Department of Homeland Security.

And this president saw the wisdom of removing terrorism’s cause by advocating the spread of democracy, especially in the Muslim world, where authoritarianism and repression have provided a potent growth medium for despair and anger aimed at the West. He recognized that democracy there makes us safer here.

President Bush will be seen as a compassionate leader who used America’s power for good.

Mickey @ 7:26 AM

plea[s]…

Posted on Saturday 1 September 2007

Ted Haggard’s Plea for Money Reproved: His "overseers have invalidated his money plea…

Why did Larry Craig resign? Were he innocent, would he have plead guilty in Minnesota? Would he have resigned? I don’t think so. While I don’t disagree with all the political analysis, my own included, I find it impossible to believe that if he were really innocent, he would have resigned. Therefore, he must not be innocent. But that’s not the end. Now, he’s hired a big lawyer:

Sen. Larry Craig Lawyers Up

Sen. Larry Craig has retained Washington lawyer Billy Martin to determine his options in his Minnesota disorderly conduct case. Martin most recently represented NFL player Michael Vick in his dog-fighting case. He also represented Monica Lewinsky’s mother in her grand jury appearance. Martin says, "The arrest of any citizen raises very serious constitutional questions, especially when that citizen says that he is innocent and pled guilty in an attempt to avoid public embarrassment. Senator Craig, like every other American citizen, deserves the full protection of our laws. He has the right to pursue any and all legal remedies available as he begins the process of trying to clear his good name."
There’s a tortured logic here. He’s arrested and charged with something that’s against the law. He pleads guilty. When it becomes public, he resigns from the Senate. He apparently is now saying that both his plea and his resignation were to avoid embarassment, but that he’s innocent, raising "constitutional questions."

If Larry Craig is guilty, he’s a liar. If Larry Craig is innocent, he’s a fool. But the whole story parades an attitude before us that deserves pondering. Like others we have to deal with in public office, in spite of what his lawyer says, he thinks he is above the law. The moment of truth was his flashing his Senatorial Identity to the policeman, an act that says, "I’m Special. I’m in the Ruling Class." I don’t think that the "I plead guilty to avoid embarassment" argument is going to make it as a general legal precedent in the courts any more than "[I’m a Senator] what do you think about that?"
Mickey @ 11:28 PM

Bush thinks?

Posted on Saturday 1 September 2007

 
 

The Pentagon has drawn up plans for massive airstrikes against 1,200 targets in Iran, designed to annihilate the Iranians’ military capability in three days, according to a national security expert.

Alexis Debat, director of terrorism and national security at the Nixon Center, said last week that US military planners were not preparing for “pinprick strikes” against Iran’s nuclear facilities. “They’re about taking out the entire Iranian military,” he said.

Debat was speaking at a meeting organised by The National Interest, a conservative foreign policy journal. He told The Sunday Times that the US military had concluded: “Whether you go for pinprick strikes or all-out military action, the reaction from the Iranians will be the same.” It was, he added, a “very legitimate strategic calculus”.

President George Bush intensified the rhetoric against Iran last week, accusing Tehran of putting the Middle East “under the shadow of a nuclear holocaust”. He warned that the US and its allies would confront Iran “before it is too late”.

One Washington source said the “temperature was rising” inside the administration. Bush was “sending a message to a number of audiences”, he said � to the Iranians and to members of the United Nations security council who are trying to weaken a tough third resolution on sanctions against Iran for flouting a UN ban on uranium enrichment.

The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) last week reported “significant” cooperation with Iran over its nuclear programme and said that uranium enrichment had slowed. Tehran has promised to answer most questions from the agency by November, but Washington fears it is stalling to prevent further sanctions. Iran continues to maintain it is merely developing civilian nuclear power.

Bush is committed for now to the diplomatic route but thinks Iran is moving towards acquiring a nuclear weapon. According to one well placed source, Washington believes it would be prudent to use rapid, overwhelming force, should military action become necessary.

Israel, which has warned it will not allow Iran to acquire nuclear weapons, has made its own preparations for airstrikes and is said to be ready to attack if the Americans back down.
The operative words in this article are "Bush is committed for now to the diplomatic route but thinks Iran is moving towards acquiring a nuclear weapon."  First, who says Bush is "committed for now to the diplomatic route?" That’s certainly not apparent to me. But then we hear the concept "[Bush] thinks." Where is the evidence that Mr. Bush thinks. Finally, "… thinks Iran is moving towards acquiring a nuclear weapon" is all it takes for him. He believes that what he thinks is what is. Most people think something, then look for evidence that it is or is not a valid thought. As much as I enjoy the London Times, this Times article betrays how little they understand about Mr. Bush. He doesn’t "think." He is an action figure. He does things. Bombing the hell out of Iran has been an action he’s lusted after for six years. He’s running out of time, so he’s turning up the heat.

Mickey @ 10:34 PM

oh great……

Posted on Saturday 1 September 2007

Just for a little break, look at this complex but damning story. Dr. James Holsinger is President Bush’s nominee for Surgeon General. Like many of Bush’s nominees, this man is a radical christian  with enough crackpot views to disqualify him from even being considered for the job. But now, it seems, he’s a crook too:

Dr. James W. Holsinger, President George W. Bush’s nominee for Surgeon General has been a controversial figure in the United Methodist Church for decades. He was elected through the efforts of a well-organized group of activists, along with two other conservatives, to the church’s Judicial Council in May, 2000, which gave the Council a rightwing majority. Holsinger has been the President of the Judicial Council since 2004. During the years that Holsinger has been on the Council, a number of unprecedented and divisive rulings have been made.

While Holsinger has been on the UMC’s Judicial Council, he also served on the board of trustees of the Good Samaritan Foundation (GSF) from July 2000 and chaired the trustees starting in 2003. The UMC and the GSF were engaged in a long and costly lawsuit beginning in May 2000. Two former members of the Judicial Council who worked with Holsinger from 2000-2004, Sally C. Askew, Esq., and Sally B. Geis, Ph.D., stated that Holsinger never mentioned being party to a lawsuit against the UMC, nor did he at any time address possible conflicts of interest involved in being a member of the UMC’s "supreme court" while engaged in significant litigation against the UMC.

The litigation involved the sale in 1995 of a 330 bed UMC hospital in Lexington, Kentucky, to a for-profit corporation and the disposition of the $20 million realized from the sale. The hospital’s trustees refused to hand over the proceeds to the rightful owners, the Kentucky Annual Conference of the UMC. Instead, the self-appointed trustees placed the $20 million into a fund under their sole control in an undisclosed location. Then the trustees proceeded to form six corporate subsidiaries, including one that was incorporated in Alaska and Wisconsin. Additionally, in direct conflict with the stated values of the UMC  the trustees engaged in gambling fund-raising ventures, one of which lost $27,500.

According to court records, the foundation’s trustees refused to tell the KAC what happened to the $20 million from the sale of the UMC hospital for nearly five years. From the time of the sale of the property in July of 1995 until the KAC filed suit against the GSF on May 18, 2000, the foundation’s trustees "refused to give an accounting of the proceeds from the sale to the Kentucky Annual Conference". In fact, as late as June of 2006 the lay and clergy members of the KAC felt compelled to pass a resolution formally seeking necessary "[i]nformation on assets, income earned, tax issues…investment practices, conflicts of interest, and other information" from the foundation.

The Good Samaritan Hospital of Lexington, Kentucky, was one of dozens of hospitals built by the Methodist church in the late 19th and early 20th centuries to provide care for the poor and indigent. The GSH had an unbroken legal and historic connection to Kentucky Methodism dating back to 1925. Photographic evidence presented in court showed that from 1968 until 1995, signs inside and outside of the hospital publicly proclaimed "The Good Samaritan Hospital of the United Methodist Church." Not surprisingly, the Kentucky courts repeatedly ruled that the hospital "was held in trust" for the KAC and that the church rightfully owns the assets.

Holsinger questioned the motives and integrity of the UMC in public comments during the litigation. He publicly stated his personal belief that the UMC was "only interested in the Foundation’s money, not its cause" [health care for the poor and disadvantaged]. This is a surprising accusation, given the long tradition among Methodists of caring for the destitute and sick. The Rev. John Wesley, an Anglican priest and founder of Methodism, who opened the first free medical clinic and pharmacy in England in 1746, would find it a peculiar charge, as would the 60 million Methodists worldwide who have built hundreds of hospitals and medical clinics and continue to do so in places such as AIDS-plagued regions of Africa.

According to a number of individuals intimately acquainted with the litigation, Holsinger was the dominant personality among the trustees and the driving force in the prolongation of the lawsuit. Shortly after GSF lost to the UMC for a second time, Holsinger stated on January 6, 2007, that the GSF trustees, which he chaired, would persist in its legal battle. He kept his word, and the lawsuit continued unabated for several more months. It was only when Holsinger was named as Surgeon General nominee that the litigation came to an abrupt halt. Within a matter of days after his May 24, 2007, nomination, Holsinger resigned from the GSF trustees and the lawsuit, communicating through a spokesperson that to continue would be incompatible with an appointment as Surgeon General. Within a mere two weeks, the suit was finally settled, after seven years of litigation…
Where does he find these people? John Bolton, our U.N. Ambassador was an outspoken, anti-U.N. activist. The head of F.E.M.A., "Brownie" was a horse show judge. James Holsinger is a crackpot Physician, and apparently a crackpot person – now turning out to be a criminal type. Alberto Gonzales had no experience in law enforcement [except, perhaps, in evading same]. Bush’s Military/Defense advisors had no military experience. It appears he appoints people with some kind of ax to grind that are guaranteed to insure that their branch of government will become dysfunctional. The standard line is that he appoints loyal people. Less talked about is that he appoints either incompetent or reactionary people who will do nothing at best and more likely, destroy their Branch’s effectiveness. Of all the people in the world of medicine, how he landed on James Holsinger is almost impossible to figure.
Mickey @ 10:08 PM

no fat lady singing yet!

Posted on Saturday 1 September 2007


A couple of days ago, the NYT reported that the White House "is growing more confident that it can beat back efforts by Congressional Democrats to shift course in Iraq." It’s not because conditions in Iraq have improved, and it’s not because the president’s policy is producing results, but because the administration has "a sense the dynamic has changed."

It’s all about some amorphous "sense" that’s entirely independent of reality. Consider what we’ve learned this week. The GAO prepared a "strikingly negative" assessment of conditions on the ground, with no political progress (the intended point of the "surge") and little evidence of reduced violence. Of the 18 Iraqi benchmarks, Bush’s policy has come up short on 15. An independent federal commission believes Iraq’s 26,000-member national police force is beyond repair and might need to be disbanded altogether. A working draft of a secret document prepared by the U.S. embassy in Baghdad shows that the Maliki government is rotten to the core. Iraqi civilian deaths are getting worse, not better. The latest data shows U.S. troop fatalities worse every month this year compared to the same months last year. A smidgeon of evidence pointing to at least marginal political progress late last week turned out to be smoke and mirrors.

It’s against this backdrop that the White House and its conservative allies boast, "See? This is the progress we’ve been waiting for." More importantly, the conventional wisdom in DC is suddenly in agreement that they’re right.
Well said, but too cynical. I hold out some hope. I wrote the New York Times, the Washington Post, and the Atlanta Journal Constitution today. So far none of them have responded. But I’m glad I did it. This is the end game. No time to roll over. If they get the Iraq thing through, they’ll bomb Iran. Time to pick up our tired asses and write everyone we can think of.
Mickey @ 5:32 PM

although…

Posted on Saturday 1 September 2007


Sen. Larry E. Craig, the Idaho Republican caught in a police crackdown on sexual solicitation in an airport men’s room, today announced his resignation from the Senate, effective Sept. 30, succumbing to an erosion of support in his home state and from members of his own party.

In a brief public statement in Boise, Craig issued a general apology but did not refer to any specific actions or admit wrongdoing.

"To Idahoans I represent, to my staff, my Senate colleagues, but most importantly to my wife and my family, I apologize for what I have caused," Craig said. "I am deeply sorry."
Although I worry that he’s being dumped for nefarious political reasons [see below], and I’m not excited about the fact that Vitter [heterosexual whore-monger] goes free, while Craig [gay cruiser] goes down in record time, I do think that there’s a positive note to be sounded here. We are beginning to expect men in high places to behave in a manner befitting their station. Enough of this scandalous stuff. We’re worn out.

Now, about President Bush and Vice President Cheney…

Mickey @ 2:50 PM

… fool me twice, shame on me!

Posted on Saturday 1 September 2007


“The stakes in Iraq are too high and the consequences too grave for our security here at home to allow politics to harm the mission of our men and women in uniform” …
George W. Bush, August 31, 2007

Congress asked for this assessment and members of Congress should withhold judgment until they have heard it” …
George W. Bush, August 31, 2007
For more years than I’d like to count, bloggers and some people in the Press have spent their spare time parsing the absurd pronouncements of the Bush Administration, tracking the history of their Talking Points as campaign after campaign hit our newspapers and our airways. There are really three objections implicit in this seemingly endless endeavor. First, most of us disagree with the policies that underlie what they say – fundamentally disagree. They believe that it is  America’s  their destiny is to literally fix the world by reforming the diverse people on Planet Earth in our own image. We disagree with that on a number of grounds, not the least of which is the obvious underlying motive. They put America on top of the chain in their plan, a "sole superpower." But our second disagreement is that the Administration does not clearly state its policy. They hide it behind National Defense, or the War on Terror, or Compassionate Conservativism, or any lofty motive they can think of to hide behind. Finally, they are corrupt – not just corrupt in response to attacks [like with Joseph Wilson] – they are preemptively corrupt like Nigergate, the 16 words, the N.S.A. program, the U.S. Attorney firings, etc.

Now, they’ve cleared the boards for the Final Conflict. They’ve dumped Karl Rove, Alberto Gonzales, and most of the Justice Department. When Senator Larry Craig gets into trouble, they want to get him off the television pronto. They’ve given speeches about the swell job that the Surge has done in Iraq – there’s even a multimillion dollar ad campaign aimed at talking up our tired, fruitless war in Iraq. They can’t make enough hostile comments about Iran. It’s now daily. Bush is saying things like "allow politics to harm the mission" and "Congress should withhold judgment." Meanwhile they’re revving up their biggest political campaign since the pre-Iraqi Invasion times.

They want to stay in Iraq, no matter what, and they want to bomb Iran. It’s as clear as a bell. And they’ve emptied the government of all their many scandal plagued players in preparation. Unless someone stops them, that’s what they’re going to do.

I don’t want them to do that. Even if there is an inevitable war with Iran, I don’t want George W. Bush and Dick Cheney involved in assessing the facts or starting such a conflict. These two men are both mentally unstable Narcissists out of control. They’re doing it again, just like in 2002-2003, and somebody has to figure out how to stop them.
Mickey @ 11:15 AM

Alberto Gonzales: down memory lane…

Posted on Friday 31 August 2007

Mickey @ 8:53 PM

in my opinion…

Posted on Friday 31 August 2007

If you’re the author of a minor blog that you’re mostly writing to deal with how you feel about the disasterous turn your country’s political situation has taken, you’re allowed to speculate on what you think might turn things around [or anything else]. This year has been something of a "turn around" year, after six long painful years of crazy government. First we got a slightly Democratic Congress. It hasn’t been as much as we’d hoped, but compared to the previous six years, it’s been a Godsend – primarily the result of a hard charging set of Congressional investigations. This year, we’ve had Scooter Libby’s conviction. And we’ve had the biggest scandal yet, still unresolved – the U.S. Attorney firings for political reasons. The net result has been the resignations of Karl Rove, Alberto Gonzales, Harriet Miers, and a host of involved people at the Department of Justice – essentially everyone involved in this attempt to subvert the DOJ into the political arm of the Republican Party. Now, the Administration is desparately trying to get us to continue a very unpopular and very misguided war – and the reports on the war are going against the Administration. The essential fear at this point is that George W. Bush and Dick Cheney are going to start a war with Iran – against the wishes of the Congress and most Americans.

What can we do about these misguided and unprincipled megalomaniacs? For whatever reason, the thing that has gotten us the most mileage in slowing them down isn’t logic, it’s scandals – and they’ve had more than enough of those: closeted gay congressmen attacking gay rights; abject crooks like Duke Cunningham and Robert Ney; plenty of that kind of thing. In the midst of the inquiries into the peculiar goings-on at the Justice Department, a man of principle, a staunch Republican, produced a story that, in my opinion, turned the tide of the Department of Justice investigation. James Comey, the former Deputy Attorney General, calmly described a late night visit by Alberto Gonzales to the then Attorney General, John Ashcroft, who was delerious in a hospital bed to try to get him to sign off on one of their shakier programs. Comey, acting for the gravely ill Ashcroft had refused. It was such a sleazy piece of work told by such an obviously principled man that it painted the Administration as the bottom feeders they actually are.

But, that little review was for a purpose. Here’s what Comey said at the beginning of his testimony:
COMEY: I’ve actually thought quite a bit over the last three years about how I would answer that question if it was ever asked, because I assumed that at some point I would have to testify about it. The one thing I’m not going to do and be very, very careful about is, because this involved a classified program, I’m not going to get anywhere near classified information. I also am very leery of, and will not, reveal the content of advice I gave as a lawyer, the deliberations I engaged in. I think it’s very important for the Department of Justice that someone who held my position not do that. 
My point is that he’d been sitting on his story for three years. He didn’t talk about what happened that night until asked under oath. When he said it, it reminded me of something else we heard a long time ago – 34 years ago:
It was a Friday afternoon in July, and the witness was just a small fry: Alexander Butterfield, who kept President Nixon’s schedule and handled his paper flow. Three staff members of the Senate Watergate Committee were questioning him, preparing for his public testimony the following Monday. Trolling, one asked whether there might be something down at the White House, some sort of recording system?

Butterfield took a breath.

"I was hoping you fellows wouldn’t ask me that," he said.1
Thus, we learned about the White House tapes, and ultimately Nixon was finally forced to resign. My point is that like Alexander Butterfield, James Comey had a story to tell, but never really told it until asked the right question. Comey didn’t like telling his story anymore that Butterfield liked telling his, but both were honest men who told the truth under oath.

George Bush and Dick Cheney have lied and conived their way through six long years. There are unquestionably any number of people in Washington D.C. who can tell their story and topple these two dangerous men. They’re not going to just be coming forward. Some, like Gonzales, would lie – or refuse to answer. But some are honest Americans who would tell the truth if asked. It’s going to take another story or two to help us get free from this tyranny. The only way to get to those stories is to continue the Congressional investigations ad nauseum, and interview everyone – asking hard questions. We know the stories are there. The devil is in finding them, and in knowing the right questions to ask. In my opinion, it’s the only way out of this nightmare – public exposure…
1 Of interest, the person who first asked Butterfield about the listening devices in the White House [though they already knew about them from the staffer’s question the day before] was none other than  Fred Thompson.  Yes, the same one who is maybe running for President – then an Assistant U.S. Attorney…
Mickey @ 8:20 PM

« Previous Page — previous posts + »
« + newer posts — Next Page »