Authoritarianism Lives on in Bu$hCo

Sidney Blumenthal of Salon (just watch the ad) shares "The emperor's new veto - Bush's first veto of Congress marks the collapse of his imperial presidency -- and a crisis for the paranoid style he and his party have mastered" that is worth a visit. Perhaps a bit too optimistic in the "collapse" as I'll submit the paranoid style is a staple of the GOP.

The piece references the work of John Dean, and I'm admittedly reluctant to link to "Conservatives Without Conscience" since I'm still not a huge Dean fan, which shared various studies on authoritarianism. Mr. Blumenthal writes:

Conservatism, as Dean sees it, has been transformed into authoritarianism. In his book, he revives an analysis of the social psychology of the right that its ideologues spent decades trying to deflect and discourage. In 1950, Theodor Adorno and a team of social scientists published "The Authoritarian Personality," exploring the psychological underpinnings of those attracted to Nazi, fascist and right-wing movements. In the immediate aftermath of Sen. Joseph McCarthy's rise and fall, the leading American sociologists and historians of the time -- Daniel Bell, David Riesman, Nathan Glazer, Richard Hofstadter, Seymour Martin Lipset and others -- contributed in 1955 to "The New American Right," examining the status anxieties of reactionary populism. The 1964 Goldwater campaign provided grist for historian Hofstadter to offer his memorable description of the "paranoid style" of the "pseudo-conservative revolt."

While Dean honors Goldwater, he picks up where Hofstadter left off. "During the past half century," he writes, "our understanding of authoritarianism has been significantly refined and advanced." In particular, he cites the work of Bob Altemeyer, a social psychologist at the University of Manitoba, whose studies have plumbed the depths of those he calls "right-wing authoritarians." They are submissive toward authority, fundamentalist in orientation, dogmatic, socially isolated and insular, fearful of people different from themselves, hostile to minorities, uncritical toward dominating authority figures, prone to a constant sense of besiegement and panic, and punitive and self-righteous. Altemeyer estimates that between 20 and 25 percent of Americans might be categorized as right-wing authoritarians.

According to Dean's assessment, "Nixon, for all his faults, had more of a conscience than Bush and Cheney ... Our government has become largely authoritarian ... run by an array of authoritarian personalities," who flourish "because the growth of contemporary conservatism has generated countless millions of authoritarian followers, people who will not question such actions."

20 to 25% of Americans! That's a huge number that can perhaps be stirred to action by fear and pressure. Again, I'm just not thinking the GOP is switching gears here. Congress might push back a little, at least for those candadates facing some moderate pressures, in an effort to cover things past the election. They need those "authoritarian" votes to have a prayer in 2006, possibly more than in 2008, and Karl Rove will be busy motivating them. Peace ... or War!

Pastor John Hagee & other conservative crazies

Sarah Posner of The American Prospect delivers "Holy War: As the Middle East burns, GOP pols, neocon pundits, and a powerful Christian right leader all sing the same (crazy) tune." These wing nuts get plenty of tolerance as few people will simply call them "crazy" yet Ms. Posner rightfully labels. Her only source is Knesset member Benny Elon, and perhaps he stretched, yet Newt Gingrich and John McCain are at least using the language. Short post on some solid work. Follow her link to the prior post on Pastor Hagee as he is an especially scary televangelist. When his books top Wal-Mart lists then you know he's in the Heartland but to have his radical ideas pressed up in DC, via CUFI, terrifies me. Peace ... or War!

Kenneth Adelman Laments "Triumph of Kerryism"

I've posted on PNAC only once from the best of my knowledge, in the context of their "Statement of Principles", and I think never on this Shakespeare spouting neo-conservative. Henry V is one of his favs perhaps? "... we happy few, we band of brothers ... "

Are we "happy" now thanks to folks like Ken Adelman? For more information on Mr. Adelman please consult the International Relations Center's Right Web and also the Center for Media & Democracy's SourceWatch.

Right of the right, Ken Adelman is especially close to Dick Cheney. Infamous for his predictions of an Iraq "cakewalk" in early 2002 and then prematurely gloating back even before the staging of Commander Codpiece's "Mission Accomplished" moment.

With no quarter given, as is his style it appears, Ken Adelman is increasingly willing to attack even Dubyah. The neo-cons aren't going without a fight it appears. The WaPo's Michael Abramowitz serves up "Conservative Anger Grows Over Bush's Foreign Policy" where the following appears:

Kenneth Adelman, a Reagan administration arms-control official who is close to Vice President Cheney, said he believes foreign policy innovation for White House ended with Bush's second inaugural address, a call to spread democracy throughout the world.

"What they are doing on North Korea or Iran is what Kerry would do, what a normal middle-of-the-road president would do," he said. "This administration prided itself on molding history, not just reacting to events. Its a normal foreign policy right now. It's the triumph of Kerryism."

Mr. Adelman, Bu$hCo mentioned "democracy" so many times for cover. No WMD, a growing insurgency, Iraq's infrastructure ran down already but now increasingly destroyed, civilian casualities, budget busting ruin to the treasury, mounting KIA numbers plus exponentially more wounded, etc. He didn't mean it! You know this dog won't hunt.

I agree Russia and Egypt are backing away from democracy yet they weren't under the past administration. Your "molding" efforts essentially broke the mold in that the U.S. is so bogged down with Iraq that the rest of the world might figure there's little we could do to stop them. The "realist" are back in vogue, which is hardly ideal in that they'll overlook the abuses of regimes if that is in the best interest of America, yet at least they know you can't create democracies by an aggressive military stance. Saudi Arabia's leadership, plus some of the other oil oligarchies that are hardly known for justice, have long been tied to Bu$hCo.

The period since the January speech reveals just a little more. The election of Hamas (Almost guaranteed after Israel was emboldened to do the Gaza pullout despite what the Palestinians begged them to delay on since they couldn't control the area!) was a surprise to Condi Rice but ought to give you an idea that this administration is simply in over its head.

If Bu$hCo was serious about spreading democracy, I think any reasonable person knows you seldom if ever do this via military power. Additionally, teaching others respect for the rule of law is hardly served when this Executive Branch is doing an end run around the law on torture, violating our own privacy laws, repressing the freedom of the press, etc.

Would that Bu$hCo were "a middle of the road" leader as he's likely going to be viewed by history as the poorest in at least the modern era. He is around Buchanan or Pierce levels even now. I'd settle for Daddy Bu$h or Slick Willy on their worst day as "normal diplomacy" seems to be better than no or wrong diplomacy. This simple minded, frat boy, dry drunk, lightweight, arrogant man hasn't the temperment to even muddle through the issues facing our nation right now. You and your type elected this disaster and then created the Iraq invasion so don't blame me/us.

As for the "Kerryism" reference, John Kerry actually served in combat rather than partying at the Diplomat down in Montgomery and campaigning for Mr. Blount. This military veteran understood the limitations and also the reasonable positives of projecting some military power. Senator Kerry authorized Bu$h to move forward, as many Democrats did, with the belief that he'd use some measure of restraint. We know now that Dick Cheny and his merry band of neo-con brothers rushed to war, gaming the intelligence and crushing opposition views as they did.

The good will of most of the world shown to our nation after 9-11 was squandered and I doubt John Kerry would have wasted that rare opportunity. Our allies were pushed aside and openly disrespected. John Kerry would not have abandoned the Clinton administrations's work on North Korea, as flawed as it was, as he was intelligent enough to appreciate the complexity of issues rather than listening to some far right hawks that have rarely if ever even seen war. He would have likely never scared Iran and North Korea into moving forward so assertively with their nuclear programs while at the same time alienating allies and cooperating governments through aggressive unilateralism. That we need the help of other nations now seems obvious but apparently not to Mr. Adelman.

The work of UN weapons inspectors in Iraq was working (obviously!) yet your war machine couldn't wait. Afghanistan was essentially abandoned and the hunt for bin Laden was outsourced. Rummy ignored and even booted military experts that did not want to experiment with his light and fast approach.

The threat of some Iraqi fighting men melting away to fight later as insurgents was dismissed, as was the idea that Iraq could become a magnet for other Islamist. People warning Bu$hCo about the dangers of occupying this land were held up as objects of scorn. Bu$h didn't have the faintest idea of Sunni and Shite (plus the Kurds) tensions and his handlers, your man Dick Cheney is the main one doing the handling of course, didn't want him to know. That Rummy didn't effectively plan for the end game and occupation is a given.

Concern over innocent civilians would not have been ignored by a Kerry administration. John Kerry wouldn't have rushed our men and women into combat lacking adequate body armor or the proper equipment. John Kerry would have never let his White House Counsel, now Attorney General, describe the Geneva Conventions as "quaint". John Kerry would have fired his Defense Secretary long ago for his ineffective leadership yet Abu Ghraib alone would have likely been enough. John Kerry would not have sent a flamethrower like John Bolten to the UN, much less do so over the objections of many in the Senate. John Kerry would not have rewarded Paul Brenner, George Tenet, and Paul Wolfowitz for their disastrous work related to Iraq.

On the Domestic Front, John Kerry would have also respected the limitations to Executive power by working with Congress. Of course if John Kerry (or Al Gore!) were President I expect Congress, if in the hands of the GOP certainly, would place aside their Rubber Stamps and "look the other way" roles of these Bu$hCo years. I truly enjoy comparing statements of the GOP leadership from back in the day with Bill Clinton with their pitiful excuses for Bu$hCo's radical administration yet I digress. I'll just briefly venture off into shooting the messengers over climate change, rewarding Big Pharma and Big Oil, cutting taxes on the Big Mules, ruining the treasury, making radical court appointments, favoring loyalty over competency, pandering to the Dobsonites, spying on Americans while violating FISA, ...

The WaPo article also quoted Danielle Pletka in her role at AEI but left out her/their role with PNAC and other neo-conservative disasters. The piece also did not reference her support for Ahmad Chalabi and the Iraqi National Congress. As for her quote, I'm figuring the few enduring souls remaining her "friend", from the tons of folks linked to AEI that remain in the Bu$hCo administration plus others working their conservative magic elsewhere inside the beltway, do think they way she does. They've got to be "true believers" indeed to not see the folly that neo-conservative ideology represents.

Indeed the neo-cons are restless. They have no shame. Every mistake is the fault of another. You'd think the game would be up for most of their foolishness yet the simplicity of their reliance on military power and other forms of American arrogance remain attractive to at least part of our population. This may be especially so with the troubles of the near Middle East. That chaos ought to be Exhibit A to support the indictment of the neo-con fantasy that Iraq clearly was yet these folks will try to flip the weakness into a positive.

Let's not allow them to escape their past errors yielding consequences that we will unfortunately have to deal with long after Bu$hCo has gone back to the ranch. Right now the goal is to start cleaning up this mess in 2006 and then moving toward electing a grown up in 2008. Peace ... or War!

AG Reveals Bu$h Barriers to NSA Review by DOJ

Davis Stout of the NYT reports on Attorney General Alberto "Abu" Gonzales' testimony before the Senate Intelligence Committee today. A Bu$hCo loyalist from his days as Bu$h's personal counsel back in Texas, Abu seems to dismiss (or at best grudgingly accept) the Supreme Court's concerns expressed in the recent Hamdin case. He also critizes the media for revealing stories that pretty much anyone in the know already knew.

However, the most shocking thing he reveals is that Bu$h personally blocked DOJ lawyers from investigating the NSA's illegal spying that undeniably violates the FISA laws.

The Decider in Chief apparently decided he'll stop even quasi-independent lawyers from examining the program. Imagine if this had happened from 1993 to late 2000!

After hearing this, surely Arlen Specter's legislation providing cover for Bu$hCo violating the FISA legislation ought to be dead in the water. Peace ... or War!

Peace ... or War?

I close most every post with "Peace ... or War!" My surname allegedly goes back to Highlander Scots from Viking stock that invaded Scotland and found it to their liking. My "clan" supposedly holds the above as their "motto". I'm not really sure if the motto is perfectly accurate but I've still found the line useful is processing my tendency to go at troubles when perhaps I should just avoid or at least delay. I am however certain that nations, and usually even individuals, should always seek to avoid war. More harm than good seems usually a given, especially in fighting the so called "Global War on Terror".

The above cartoon by Vince O'Farrel of Wallongong Australia spoke to me. Even Viking warriors can get over-scheduled. From the Sudan to many other places, I'm tired of the conflict. Too much killing and destruction for certain yet in the long run so much of what Bu$hCo has done is to create more hatred and extremism. Invading Iraq in the manner Dubyah and his neo-con handlers did will I think go down as the most consequential mistake of any American President.

I'll still end my post as I generally do but the "war" portion relates merely to how I hope to confront needless, and actually counter-productive violence, plus other injustices. Citizens have a duty to speak up and demand wise leadership from those elected to serve their government. Problems facing our nation and world go beyond war but starting with genuinely seeking peace seems foundational. Peace ... or War!

German Chancellor Creeped out by Bu$hCo

Taylor Marsh shares the images. Hardly a smile! Ms. Merkel looks very uncomfortable and I don't begin to fathom why Bu$hCo did this. Who does he think he is, Bill Clinton? (You know if Slick had done this she'd be smiling and the right wing would be howling!) The Middle East/the world needs leadership and we get groping ... and cussing. By the way, drop your $325,000.00 in the FCC cuss jar Dubyah. And don't talk with your mouth full Mr. President. Peace ... or War!

Freepers Show Compassionate Conservatism

Jesus General reveals the "morals" of some of the freepers in response to kids and women being burned alive in Lebanon. I blogged yesterday on some of the Rapture Ready crowd being all in a lather with Armegeddon looming in the Middle East. Condi claims it is "grotesque" to think Bu$hCo's Iraq disaster has anything to do with the chaos despite what Dead Eye Dick claimed would be the result. Peace .. or War!

Captain Plaid is a "Liberal Airhead"

With yet another tip of the tam to Wheeler at Alablawg I'll send you to the The F-scale. I measured a 2.6. Peace ... or War!

Even the babies in Europe don't like Bu$hCo

The Germans killed a hog (I think they call them boars) for Bu$hCo today yet this young German tyke was hardly welcoming King George. German Chancellor Angela Merkel and Dubyah are making nice in the run up to the G-8 meetings in Russia. Putin is dissing on Dead Eye Cheney's hunting accident. Southwest Asia is even more violent than usual with Israel and Hezbollah squared off. North Korea is ... Peace ... or War!

Waving Goodbye to Our American Legal System

I once held Pennsylvania Senator Arlen Specter in somewhat high esteem, if nothing else for rejecting Jefferson Beauregard Sessions III when he came before the Senate Judiciary Committee. Of course that's long before Jeffy B. earned a seat in the Senate and actually on the committee. When President Sessions takes office and names Arlen as his AG the circle will be complete. Senator Specter's bout with cancer, something that took both my parents, was another connection.

I'd feared something like this was coming yet damned if I'm not shocked it is this poor of a solution. Here's the WaPo's Charles Babington and Peter Baker reporting "Bush Compromises On Spying Program : Senate Bill Would Permit Court Review" with the following being a huge cause for pause:

The White House conceded in part because it believes the NSA program will survive constitutional muster and the Specter bill will make it easier to argue that the program complies with congressional statutes as well. "We've always said it's constitutional," said one administration official who was not authorized to speak on the record.

The language acknowledging the president's constitutional authority to conduct intelligence operations also was important to the White House. "We see it as historic because here's a statute recognizing an authority the president says he has," the administration official said.

Still, that language alone might mean little because it did not define the scope of the authority or explicitly suggest that a president did not need to seek court approval for warrants. But at the same time, Specter agreed to repeal a section of the original FISA law that made it the exclusive statute governing such intelligence programs.

The combination of the statement acknowledging presidential authority and the deletion of the exclusivity clause left open the interpretation that Bush has the power to conduct other surveillance outside FISA's purview, a possibility administration officials noted with approval.

This is a "compromise"? Think Progress knows this is hogwash. Glenn Greenwald assures us that there's no amnesty in the legislation, not that is might matter to the Rubber Stamp Congress. Given the super double secret FISA court would hear any litigation perhaps any Bu$hCo sins will never be known. I'm still betting The White House, especially this White House, has been looking and listening in plenty of places it shouldn't have.

Today's initial post by Glenn is another must read, as is true of pretty much all of his work, for the level of angst and insight. He asks "What will Democrats do in the face of the Specter cave-in?" yet I expect they've first got to attack the idea that this is a "compromise". Congress has abandoned so much for Bu$hCo and darned if Arlen hasn't handed them even more cover. After The Supremes somewhat reeled in this Executive branch I'm frankly in shock that this legislation is apparently going to become law. Rove and Mehlman will hand out the talking points and we know which team has the votes, especially if the Centrist Democrats fall into line.

Shame on you Senator Specter. I know you've got to straddle the fence on some things to keep the wingnuts off you yet this is outrageous. Your" single bullet" theory back in the day on the JFK Warren Commission was "odd' yet I'm lost why a smart and powerful man would hand this gift to Bu$hCo. As to our Constitution and laws and traditions, goodbye indeed with men like Arlen Specter providing leadership. Peace ... or War!

Frenchy says Bu$hCo just doesn't "measure up"

I'll nominate as an honorary Scot one Dominique de Villepin who, back in March of 2003, served as Foreign Minister for France. Poputonian, via Digby's Hullabaloo, reminds us of the French position on Iraq back before Bu$hCo went to war. This guy was dead on correct and we owe his country an apology.

I'm still swilling Fat Bastard and other French wines yet I know you guys caught hell. Here's my favorite portion of his UN remarks:

By imposing a deadline of only a few days, would we merely be seeking a pretext for war? As a permanent member of the Security Council, I will say it again: [We] will not allow a resolution to pass that authorizes the automatic use of force.…Let us be clear-sighted. We are defining a method to resolve crisis. We are choosing how to define the world we want our children to live in.…

These crises have many roots. They are political, religious, economic. Their origins lie deep in the turmoil of history.…

There may be some who believe that these problems can be resolved by force, thereby creating a new order. But this is not what [we] believes. On the contrary, we believe that the use of force can arouse resentment and hatred, fuel a clash of identities and of cultures, something that our generation has a prime responsibility to avoid.…

To those who believe that war would be the quickest way of disarming Iraq, I can reply that it will drive wedges and create wounds that will be long in healing. And how many victims will it cause? How many families will grieve?…

We do not subscribe to what may be the other objectives of a war. Is it a matter of regime change in Baghdad? No one underestimates the cruelty of this dictatorship or the need to do everything possible to promote human rights. But this is not the objective of Resolution 1441. And force is certainly not the best way of bringing about democracy. Here and elsewhere it would encourage dangerous instability.…

Is it a matter of fighting terrorism? War would only increase it and we would then be faced with a new wave of violence.…

Is it finally a matter of recasting the political landscape of the Middle East? In that case, we run the risk of exacerbating tensions in a region already marked by great instability. Not to mention that in Iraq itself, the large number of communities and religions already represents a danger of a potential break-up.…

We all have the same demands. We want more security and more democracy. But there is another logic other than the logic of force. There is another path. There are other solutions. We understand the profound sense of insecurity with which the American people have been living since the tragedy of September 11, 2001. The entire world shared the sorrow of New York and of America struck in the heart. And I say this in the name of our friendship for the American people, in the name of our common values: freedom; justice; tolerance.…

But there is nothing today to indicate a link between the Iraqi regime and al Qaeda. And will the world be a safer place after a military intervention in Iraq? I want to tell you what my country's conviction is: It will not.…

Four months ago, we unanimously adopted a system of inspections to eliminate the threat of potential weapons of mass destruction and to guarantee our security. Today, we cannot accept, without contradicting ourselves, a conflict that might well weaken it. Yes, we also want more democracy in the world. But we can only achieve this objective within the framework of a true global democracy based on respect, sharing, the awareness of a true community of values and a common destiny, and its core is the United Nations. Let us make no mistake, in the face of multiple and complex threats, there is no single response, but there is a single necessity -- we must remain united.…

Today we must together invent a new future for the Middle East. Let us not forget the immense hope created by the efforts of the Madrid conference and the Oslo agreement. Let us not forget that the Mideast crisis represents our greatest challenge in terms of security and justice. For us, the Middle East, like Iraq, represents a priority commitment, and this calls for even greater ambition and boldness. We should envision a region transformed through peace; civilizations that, through the courage of reaching out to each other, rediscover their self-confidence and an international prestige equal to their long history and their aspirations.…

Mr. President, in a few days, we must solemnly fulfill our responsibility through a vote. We will be facing an essential choice: disarming Iraq through war or through peace.

Well done Sir. It should have been "peace" yet I'll still close with Peace ... or War!

A Sorry Bu$hCo Environmental Record

The WaPo takes Bu$hCo to task for his remarks to Larry King last Thursday claiming "We've got a great record." when responding to softball questions/prompts somewhat related to the environment. Here are the bottom line facts presented by this editorial:

The administration has not taken the steps necessary to limit greenhouse gas emissions, barring some miraculous technological breakthrough. Aside from modestly raising fuel economy standards, it has not created a regulatory climate favorable to carbon reductions either in vehicles or in power plants. It has resisted mandatory limits on carbon emissions and the sort of ambitious fuel economy standards that would force automakers to innovate and help make smaller cars more attractive. It has resisted taxing carbon use, preferring instead to provide incentives for oil and gas extraction -- just the opposite of what's needed.

Bu$hCo has the worst record of any President on many things yet the environment has to be one of his/their worst. Mother Jones says so as does Al Gore. The Sierra Club created a list of his environmental errors they labeled "Bush's 7 Deadly Sins" in 2004. Peace ... or War!

Snow Job and Crybaby Diplomacy

Josh Marshall nailed Tony Snow today for slipping into full wing-nut claptrap overdrive. I love the "talk tough and do nothing" angle. Blaming Clinton's approach on the day Time comes out with "The end of cowboy diplomacy : Why the 'Bush Doctrine' no longer works for Bush administration" has the irony running especially strong. Tony apparently thinks he is still with Faux News with this type of blame Bill Clinton garbage. Peace ... or War!

George Lakoff reminds us Bu$hCo isn't "Stupid"

UC-Berkeley liguistics professor George Lakoff's Rockridge Institute has been a Highlander favorite for some time. Alternet gave him space for "George Bush is not incompetent" that reminds us of how the Conservative movement has been grooving right along under this administration. To have accomplished so much for the GOP we can hardly label them as "incompetent".

That the President is seemingly so "stupid", and I'll admit I have an incredibly low opinion of Dubyah's intellect, ought not to distract us from what he/they have accomplished. We Lefty Progressives need to focus on attacking the flaws, and there are plenty, of Conservatism instead of simply bashing Bu$hCo.

This is especially true as we move toward 2008. The right has already started shedding Bu$h but after this fall's midterms you can expect the blame game to begin in full force. Faulting Bu$hCo management rather than the GOP's foundational beliefs may very well allow them to remain in power.

Several of Dr. Lakoff's books appear on my Amazon Wish List. Noam Chomsky influenced, this is one serious citizen with much to offer our world. Peace ... or War!

Did Dick Cheney Exit Norman Mineta?

If Bu$h had Kenny Boy murdered, and again I'm in no way suggesting that he did, would Dick Cheney not have been upset with Transportation Secretary Norman Mineta's 9-11 Testimony being quoted on Faux News? Tip of the tam to Becky at Preemptive Karma for passing on a theory of why Secretary Mineta resigned. Iran-Contra Liar Ollie North, subbing for Surly Sean, let Dr. James Fetzer, of "9-11 Scholars for Truth", talk long enough to mention Mineta's testimony before the 9-11 Commission (about halfway down) that contradicts portions of The White House timeline. Less than twelve hours later the resignation is in the books! Once again, I'm not implying anything except how Republicans would handle similar opportunites if the tables were turned. Mr. Mineta, I'd pass if ever invited to go hunting with the VP. Peace ... or War!

Did George Bu$h have Ken Lay Murdered?

In ReThuglican World the questions would be asked and repeated and honed and distributed and ... Tip of the Tam to David Goldstein via HuffPo for making me think. Peace ... or War!

Eugene Jarecki's "Why we Fight" Documentary

I have it on good authority that Eugene Jarecki's "Why We Fight" is a must see. The title comes from Frank Capra's WWII effort and much of film is built around Ike's warning on the "military-industrial complex" in his farewell address of 1961. Nice set of trailers and the like on the film site. Covers Iraq and uses a diverse set of perspectives. I'd read about the film and intended to see yet will consider it a priority.

One thing I have already learned was that originally Eisenhower planned to label his concern the "military-industrial-Congress complex". One trailer segment mentioned how the B2 Bomber has parts made in every state to assure Congress stays on board with the funding. The power of the purse seems to work both ways. Big money buys big rewards. Whie Bu$hCo and his Rubber Stamp Congress is the most openly bought and sold government yet the reality is that some centrist Democrats are on board as well. Even liberal or progressive legislators want their folks back home to get a share of the defense dollar.

Another comment I'll offer is to a portion of Ike's speech that reads as follows:

This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence-economic, political, even spiritual-is felt in every city, every state house, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society.

In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.

We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.

"Alert and knowledgeable citizenry" hardly applies today does it? Politicians, especially those to the far right, seem to pander to the lowest common denominator. I'm not so sure the American public of today would really be able to even understand Ike's concerns. Peace ... or War!

Another Murray Waas Scoop - Bu$h was at least a cheerleader in Plame Game

I've previously posted the work of Murray Waas and others building off his journalism. Mr. Waas is "old school" yet he's all over the Valerie Plame leak case with much of his reporting being dead on accurate and the balance still uncertain. He's an authority that knows this story.

Yesterday, The National Journal dropped his "Bush Directed Cheney To Counter War Critic" with sources indicating Federal Prosecutors were told this way back in 2004. Good review of the case as well.

It would have been appropriate to know this before the election, as would much about The Plame Affair and Iraq and ... Words such as "Get it out." or "Let's get this out." were allegedly used by The Cheerleader in Chief.

Of course Snow Job and The White House will have no comment since it is an ongoing investigation. "Silly Press Corp, Tricks are for Kings" works since Bu$hCo looks at the Press as a tool to use or simply ignore. Beating up on the NY Times works, even though Judy Miller carried your water to get us into Iraq and then The Gray Lady stalled on stories until after the election. Now they are useful to bash as "Red meat for the base".

It is the 4th of July today but it seems like Fitzmas with this news. That Scooter's pardon prospects are rising matters not. I'd like to see a trial yet if the pardon goes through then perhaps some journalist, or maybe even a Republican Congress member or two, will press for answers. Either way is seems clear that "Bu$hCo lied and many have died!" Heck of a job Bu$hie in bringing honor back to the White House. Peace ... or War!

John Stossel - "Outlander of Today" (or "the Day")

My "Outlander of the Day" concept hardly has been followed up on regularly. As a default we can use Jim Wooten in my region. Nearly any of the right wingnuts shills will do for the nation. Today, still in a rush and way busy, I'll quickly give John Stossel the honor for today.

David Neiwert's Ornicus post "Weird science from the far right" gets the tip of the tam for helping me recall that John Stossel, Corporate Journalist (as named by John K. Wilson) has long been due for this honor. FAIR knows the score on ABC's Tool of the Right. Way back in early 2000, almost a year before five Supreme Court justices annointed Bu$hCo by telling Florida to stop counting votes, Salon labeled him "Prime Time Propagandist"

The Competitive Enterprise Institute (one of ExxonMobil's favorites in the "think tank" mix) even has a Support John Stossel site! I'm surprised they reveal they are involved rather than trying to create an astroturf organization.

A quick reminder of what we Lefty Progressives are facing in trying to break down all the barriers to solutions. Peace ... or War!

SCOTUS Scolds Bu$hCo & Rubber Stampers

I've been dreadfully busy with progress about the Ponderosa and not posting. I'll try to get back in the saddle ASAP yet this might do for now. Lots of material but not time to mill it. For the time being, The WaPo's Editorial Board serves up "Let There Be Law : The Supreme Court has offered a chance to put the war on terror on solid legal ground. Will Congress rise to the occasion?" that is super solid. The WaPo writes, and I'm giving you the whole thing with my emphasis supplied, the following:

THE SUPREME Court's rejection of the Bush administration's plan for terrorist trials has rightly been seen as a rebuff of the president's unilateral legal approach to fighting al-Qaeda. But in a subtler way, it is also a profound rebuke to Congress. The nation's legislature has mostly sat on the sidelines for the duration of the war on terror, letting the administration make its own rules -- and ride roughshod over the law as well as fundamental American values. The court's action forces the administration to invite Congress into the process of designing trials for enemy combatants. This presents a major opportunity to bring the legal framework of this conflict -- and the country's political system -- back into balance.

This chance is far broader than the relatively narrow question of how accused terrorists should face justice. There is an opportunity to provide legislative authorization -- along with limits, safeguards and accountability -- for all of the powers and practices the U.S. government may need in a long-term confrontation with violent Islamist extremism. Congress should audit the administration's treatment of prisoners, whether in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, or in secret locations abroad. It should scrutinize its interrogation methods, including those that skirt prohibitions against torture. It should review the government's domestic surveillance and debate the proper balance between ensuring Americans' privacy and gathering intelligence effectively.

The immediate danger is that Congress will become reckless and hasty and abdicate the responsibility the court has given it. With midterm elections looming, the administration may push for quick legislative fixes. It may ask for a simple statutory authorization for the military commissions it wants to use for terrorist trials. It may also seek to counter the court's ruling that Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions, which requires humane treatment for all detainees, includes al-Qaeda members. Having granted the administration a blank check for so long, Congress should not offer a rubber stamp.

Instead, and as a start, Congress needs to examine comprehensively what changes, if any, the administration truly needs in the ordinary rules of military justice to bring al-Qaeda suspects to trial. Many military lawyers believe terrorist trials could proceed smoothly using the normal system of courts-martial, which the military utilizes to try its own personnel. The administration has several concerns, chiefly the need to protect classified intelligence information and its desire to use evidence collected in the rough and tumble of war that might not be admissible in a conventional court-martial. Its own rules offered maximal flexibility at considerable risk to fairness. Congress must satisfy itself both that any deviations are truly needed and that they are no broader than absolutely necessary.

Legislators also have an important role to play concerning the court's holding on Geneva's Common Article 3, which could have a major impact on treatment standards for prisoners. The import of the decision is to make it a potential crime under U.S. law to treat prisoners inhumanely, yet the Geneva article is vague in its language. As a consequence, it is essential that Americans fighting the war get clear guidance as to what conduct is prohibited. Given the administration's ugly history of construing vague language requiring humane treatment as allowing inhumane treatment, it cannot be permitted a free hand in that interpretation.

At a minimum, Congress should force the administration to publish the guidance it gives to personnel in the field concerning the article's meaning. More broadly, it should consider legislation putting meat on the treaty's rather bare bones. It should consider every exceptional practice the administration has tried to justify: from "waterboarding" and other practices of torture and near-torture to "renditions" of suspects to foreign governments to the holding of prisoners incommunicado. One obvious place to start would be to stipulate that the CIA's network of secret prisons is not consistent with Geneva's requirements: Its detainees must be transferred to U.S. facilities, registered with the International Red Cross and guaranteed humane treatment.

Other issues not directly addressed by the court warrant close examination, too. As we have argued before, Congress should put on firmer legal ground the basis on which captives in this war are detained in the first place. It needs to gets a handle on the National Security Agency's program of domestic surveillance -- authorizing whatever part of it is necessary, subject to meaningful judicial and legislative oversight.

This is a moment in which this country can correct the mistake of five years ago, when the executive branch sought to fight a novel war based on a combination of outdated laws and new rules it made up on its own. The Supreme Court has created the chance to bring real law to the war on terror -- if Congress is willing to do its job.

Good stuff! Very true. I've been looking forward to January 2009 for a long time since we'll be shed of Bu$h yet I fear Bu$hCo willl live on. I know the Big Mules will have a hard time finding such a "stupid" SOB yet George Allen might come close, in act or reality. I'm not so sure he'll get past fellow Scot James Webb but we'll see. One thing I'll add is the need to have some doctrine and law upon which this GWOT can be based. Cheney/Addington and Rummy and ... have seeming just operated under their clearly radical and often ineffective approach. Throw in Karl Rove and the modern GOP and we've simply got a mess. Cleaning up after Bu$hCo is going to be a job for all of us. Peace ... or War!