The column stirred something in me, though. I recalled an article on page 900 of that "liberal rag" the New York Times, back in 2003, in which a Democratic congressmen, John Conyers, from Michigan called for an impeachment of the President on the ground that he lied about our reasons for going to war with Iraq. I remember chuckling when I read that as well. Looking back, I wonder why the media chose to bury that story and really hasn't talked much about it since that time.The same column also made me think of a comment that was made recently on Real Time with Bill Maher. Graydon Carter, Editor of Vanity Fair, said that if you were to tell a person in the year 2000 what the United States would look like in the year 2005, they probably wouldn't believe you. Our country has gone so far away from what it should be that it is, quite simply, a travesty. The United States of 2005 looks nothing like the Unites States of 2000. I did not chuckle at all upon hearing this charge. Why?
Because I realized that our country now reminds of a lot of the 1972-74 United States of America. We all fondly remember those days, don't we? When our president lied, broke the law and resigned. And several members of his staff went to prison for breaking all sorts of laws. Isn't it soooooooo funny that my two pals, Dick Cheney and Don Rumsfeld, just happened to be serving in the government during that time.
Dick Cheney's political career began in 1969, during the Nixon administration. He held a number of positions in the years that followed, including serving on the Cost of Living Council, at the US Office of Economic Opportunity as a special assistant to Donald Rumsfeld beginning in the spring of 1969.Speaking of the devil, Don Rumsfeld resigned from Congress in 1969 during his fourth term to serve in the Nixon Administration as Director of the US Office of Economic Opportunity, Assistant to the President, and a member of the President's Cabinet (1969-1970); Counselor to the President, Director of the Economic stabilization Program; and member of the President's Cabinet (1971-1972).
So, all of these things have been percolating in my mind and have sort of coalesced into this week's topic. The same people that were abusing power back then are abusing it today. The only difference is that this time they are succeeding beyond their wildest dreams.The difference between today and yesterday is that are at least 40 million people in this country that, unless President Bush is caught with a live boy or a dead girl, will believe anything the White House says. And they will never, EVER, believe that a Democrat could do a better job.
Democrats, as an ultra-conservative told me recently at a party, should all be killed for treason. Thank god he is currently serving in the armed forces, eh? Because we all know that a Democrat could neeeeeeeeeeever support our troops, right?
At the very least, I think that Bush Co have done the WORST job in the history of our country running our government and they should be fired for gross negligence i.e. a recall vote similar to California. At medium best, I think Bush should be impeached and let's have the Congress poke around into all the shit the White House has been getting into lately. And at the very best, I think Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rove, and few other folks should go to jail.
You can call me crazy, if you want, but President Clinton was impeached by the Senate for lying about having extramarital sex. Thus far, Bush Co has lied about or concealed the truth about (and this is just the short list):
1. WMDs in Iraq. Looking back at President Bush's speeches we see him say over and over again that Saddam Hussein has weapons of mass destruction. Today, we know that he did not as we had pretty much destroyed his program in the first Gulf War. Bush pointed the finger at faulty intelligence so either our government is inept or liars. Which makes you feel better? And why are our young men and women sacrificing their lives again?
2. Hurricane Katrina Response. President Bush said they had no idea that they levees would break and yet there is video out that clearly shows the President being informed that there was a danger of severe flooding in New Orleans. He told everyone that the Federal Government was ready. Again, he is either inept or a liar.3. NSA Wiretaps. He concealed the truth about domestic spying and then used the old line about how the release of this information helps the enemy. Gee, I guess the terrorists had NOOOOOOOOOOO idea whatsoever that someone could be listening to them. There are good arguments on both sides of this issue but I really have to call into question the people that are so afraid that they are willing to give up freedoms and give the executive branch of government more power (regardless of whether or not it is legal).
4. Signed off on a deal to let a nation that supports terrorism (UAE) administer six our ports. I think the facts here speak for themselves.
5. Cheney outed a CIA agent to retaliate for said agent's husband's critical comments about the the Iraq War. This is clearly against the law. If Al Gore had done it, the Republicans would demand that he be put in prison immediately.
6. Prisoner Abuse. A touchy issue with me as I think that Al Qaeda would torture our men and women without batting an eyelash. But aren't we supposed to be better than that? Didn't we sign the Geneva convention? And why is Zaccarias Moussoui, a known accomplice in 9-11, being treated well in prison and the enemy combatants at Guantonomo Bay being tortured.?
Gasp! Wait. I just realized something. By saying all of these things, I am helping the evildoers. I am aiding and abetting the enemy. I must not be a patriot. Oh no.....
And now you see the culture that these people have created. Our current government has created a country where no one is allowed to question authority. If you do, then you are branded a traitor. I don't think many of you reading this know how dead fucking serious these people are about controlling us. I have seen it in person and in recent documentaries like This Divided State.
And THAT is how our government is like Hitler's. Sure, we will not see people rounded up and sent to camps. But we have seen a concerted effort on the part of the NCDs (Neo Con Douchebags) in this country to effectively silence or make a fool of anyone who speaks up.
Pick up any newspaper, turn on any news station, or listen to any radio show....Especially the right wing shows....and you will hear the government's propaganda machine percolating along.
I know that the NCDs think that all these accusations are a liberal plot to destroy our way of life and help the enemy.....That's a given. But I think, and this is coming from someone who has voted for several Republicans in my voting career, that it is FUCKING MUCH WORSE than the Clinton deal and we, as citizens, should be ashamed for letting this sham continue.
The sham actually began 30 years ago when my best pals Dick Cheney and Don Rumsfeld served under the great bastion of presidential honesty, Dick Nixon. But how does that relate to today? Why did I mention it? What do they hope to accomplish? How did it all begin and what is the ultimate goal of Cheney and Rumsfeld?
These questions will be answered in next week's column.
10 comments:
So your next column is going to tell us what the ultimate goal of Cheney and Rumsfeld is? Interesting, (not).
Your cases for impeachment as numbered...
1. You want me to repost the quotes from Dems from 1998 talking about Saddams WMD’s? Yep, they were all destroyed in the first Gulf War. Please. Then why didn’t Saddam just let the inspectors back in to get out from under the sanctions that were in place against his country? The only place I’ve read that "they were all destroyed in the first gulf war" is on this blog (probably for a reason).
2. So GWB was warned of flooding, so was everyone else and somehow, several hundred thousand people managed to engage their brains and get the hell out of dodge. So what the hell could he have done beforehand? Even I knew that a category 5 hurricane was about to hit shore down there. With regards to the warnings he received, I’ll let the AP speak for me via the correction they had to issue...
"Clarification: Katrina-Video story
ASSOCIATED PRESS
WASHINGTON (AP) _ In a March 1 story, The Associated Press reported that federal disaster officials warned President Bush and his homeland security chief before Hurricane Katrina struck that the storm could breach levees in New Orleans, citing confidential video footage of an Aug. 28 briefing among U.S. officials.
The Army Corps of Engineers considers a breach a hole developing in a levee rather than an overrun. The story should have made clear that Bush was warned about floodwaters overrunning the levees, rather than the levees breaking."
GWB was warned about the levees overtopping, which is a much less dangerous threat than a "breach" of a levee. Maybe someone should have issued a mandatory evacuation? Oh yeah, that was issued.
3. I’d be willing to bet that Al Queda members had no idea that we had that kind of technology available to us. He "concealed the truth" for a very good fucking reason IMO. So tell me, how did the release of the details of this program in the NYT help our cause against Al Queda? Please inform us.
4. I don’t think DPW should have been approved to take over operations at the porst either. Speaking of the country changing over time, it was back in late 2003 when Steve and Charlie were telling Mark "It amazes me that you paint Islam and other faiths with a broad, all
encompassing brush" which is exactly what the critics of this deal have done. The message that has been sent is..."No matter how much you arab governments modernize, the American People will not be able to differentiate between you and Al Queda".
5. Scooter Libby was found guilty of perjury but noone was found guilty of the charges you mentioned.
6. We don’t have to follow the Geneva Convention laws with regards to those prisoners...the people we are fighting over there are not fighting under any 1 country or flag which is what is needed to be afforded Geneva Convention protections. We are dealing with an underground network of people who aren’t following the Geneva Convention themselves, hence the limited war we have to fight because of people who think like you. They are the worst scum of the earth, people who bomb schools, decapitate people, execute untold numbers, blend in with civilians, shoot from mosques, and play dead so when we approach them they can set off explosives, etc. They don't deserve due process and they don't deserve any legal protection, they can rot in jail until the war on terrorism ends for all I care (and I’m not alone in that line of thinking). If you release them they will go right back to killing innocent people around the globe. They are non-uniformed, enemy combatants. As such, they are not afforded Geneva Convention rights, nor are they to be treated as simple criminals.
Going back to the question I asked in point #3, here’s a good quote...
"Experience proves that the man who obstructs a war in which his nation is engaged, no matter whether right or wrong, occupies no enviable place in life or history. Better for him, individually, to advocate "war, pestilence, and famine" than to act as an obstructionist to a war already begun. The history of the defeated rebel will be honorable hereafter, compared with that of the Northern man who aided him by conspiring against his government while protected by it. The most favorable posthumous history the stay-at-home traitor can hope for is–oblivion."
Quote from General Grant, civil war general.
Crab
The difference between what the Dems said then and the current situation is that the Dems did NOT take this country to war over it.
I, like many Americans, feel betrayed that Bush Co lied to us. It's so obvious. All you have to do is look at what they have said over the last three years and the story keeps changing.
I believed them and I was wrong. I will never fall for the bullshit again....regardless of who is in the White House.
I think the fact that they did not take the country to war in 1998 has nothing to do with the fact that they repeatedly said that Saddam had WMD's.
I think that Markadelphia has hit on an important point. There is a culture of corruption that has become prevalent in American culture and it is not limited to the Republican or Democratic Parties. I was a wee one when Watergate came down and outside of the fact that my parents made me watch Nixon's resignation speech (stating quite simply that everything had changed and that this was a pivotal point in the nations history...I didn't know why, probably because I was a child) I don't have a feel for the climate of the nation at the time or for the preceeding decade. What I can speak to is the climate in this country at this time from my perspective. If, for a moment, we assume that certain members of the Republican Party are not evil, then we must try to understand the reasoning that has led us to where we are now as a nation. Where we are now is we are massively in debt, we have become a nation of consumers ceasing to be producers, our armed forces are overstretched and engaged in a war that there is no hope of "winning" (whatever that means), there seems to be a new scandal for the administration every month, environmental laws have been seriously sidestepped in favor of the energy producers/mining interests/oil interests, gas prices are up, the countries population is divided almost in half (although it is looking suspiciosly like that is changing if we are to trust job approval ratings), health care costs are skyrocketing with 10% increases annually, there are 40 million uninsured people unable to access health care, there are at least 2 nations that pose a serious threat to our national security in Iran and North Korea, portions of the country have been devestated by natural events and there is no money to rebuild, and these are just what comes to mind. How in the hell did this happen?
Like I said, if we are to assume that the administration is NOT evil, then we must understand how all of this has come about. I suggest that certain people in this administration felt that they could do a better job than the Clinton/Gore team did. What was wrong with what Clinton/Gore did you might ask? Economically we were doing better and things were quiet (perhaps too quiet from a foreign policy point of view). Where Clinton/Gore screwed up is that 1) Clinton had oral sex with an intern bringing shame to the country and 2) They had increased taxes to pay for the spending of the government putting the burden on industry and wealthy Americans. Looking into the past, the Bush team probably felt that they could be put into power by cutting taxes and having foreign interests bankroll government spending just as Reagen had done (albeit for different reasons). They could stay in power by creating superordinate goals for the country, hence we get a war that would rally the nation behind the president. September 11 fell into their laps (again assuming that evil people wouldn't allow something to happen that might favor their position) allowing for an introduction to a War on Terror that God willing (and logic dictating) would not ever end. It is good for the Military Industrial Complex, good for rallying people behind a president who up until September 11 had not really had a good start (economic decline, lost spyplane and crew in China, etc), and BOOM, instant power base. Wrap up the fortuitous events with some good PR and then you get a second term. After finding oneself adored and finally succeeding at something, Bush and his administration probably came to enjoy the power of being able to not have to answer to anyone. Who wouldn't? You don't want people to look at presidential records? Seal the archives. You don't want people to interfere with what you think is the best course of action? Seal the records and claim issues of national security. Only a traitor would question decisions that were labeled a matter of national security.
But here is the rub...power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. This should have been the lesson that America learned with Watergate. This is a timeless lesson that was made famous by Julius Caeser (I think.. or Marcus Aurelius, can't remember now). It is inevitable and our founding fathers had some grasp of this so they created checks and balances. Now there are no checks and balances and although reasonable people can think that in order to get things done in the best interest of the country there needs to be only one cook in the kitchen, history tells us otherwise. If Bush and Cheney and Rumsfield and Rove are not evil, then I think they have fallen prey to the lure of absolute power. Absolute power inevitably becomes corrupt and at the bare minimum breeds incompetence. No checks and balances means idiots can be hired to do jobs that they shouldn't. It means that like-minded people can be put into positions that reinforce the power structure rather than challenge it and then the cycle is allowed to continue as can potentially be the case with Supreme Court nominees.
Collectively we are a thick headed culture and it is unfortunate that the education we have received has not allowed us to be more critical of the government whether it is Democratic or Republican led. The difference has been that the Republicans have no trouble in branding doubters and criticizors as traitors and then exacting some type of revenge as was the case with Valerie Plame (sp?)
By the by Scratch...the chances that the terrorists didn't know about cell phone monitoring is next to zero. It has been common knowledge since cell phones came into being that they could be monitored. These guys are not unsophisticated and if anything, they were counting on the odds that their limited number of calls would not be randomly monitored or discovered. In fact there is some evidence to suggest that they have used the knowledge that they were being monitored to spread false information.
Wow. Great stuff, John. Almost a column within itself.
What you have said really speaks to the point that our country is really being lead to a dark place...maybe it is already in one.
I don't understand why supporters of this administration can't see that.
It's as if admitting it would mean that they Democrats were right. Typical black and white thinking in a very grey world.
The last five years things have just so far south....I don't know....can we get out of it?
Indeed we do have a culture of corruption. Show me a country that doesn’t have leaders that abuse their power. The level of corruption varies…there are a lot of countries that have leaders that live in castles while their people starve. I guess when I put that is perspective I don’t think we have it that bad here. Sure our country has a massive debt but that number pales in comparison to the pension crisis awaiting the EU. The freebies those governments promise their people combined with low birth rates combined with muslim immigrants to those countries who have no motivation to assimilate into the country (the company I work for is headquartered out of Germany so I’ve heard all about this) and who are comfortable taking welfare checks from the government instead of working gives those “enlightened” countries their own mess to deal with. America still offers the most opportunity of anywhere which is why you see people willing to risk their lives in cargo containers or rafts trying to get here because no matter how much foreigners may get annoyed with our foreign policy, the American Dream is still alive and well and no other country offers as much opportunity to it’s citizens as we do.
With regards to "winning" the war, the war critics as well as the media will never let us win. For example, the operation in Fallujah delivered an absolutely devastating blow to the insurgency. Though much smaller in scope, clearing Fallujah of insurgents arguably could equate to the Allies' breakout from the hedgerows in France during World War II. In both cases, our troops overcame a well-prepared and solidly entrenched enemy and took over a city the size of Greensboro, NC in no time at all. In Fallujah, the enemy death toll exceeded 1,500. Put one in the win column for the good guys, right? Wrong. As soon as there was nothing negative to report about Fallujah, the media shifted its focus to other parts of the country and we got headlines like "25 Marines Die in Iraq Clashes".
I do believe we are making slow and steady progress, though it is mostly ignored and/or hidden. I won't bore you details, I’ll just say that to point out positive developments is not to deny the bad news, merely to provide a more complete picture.
One part of the answer to your question of "How the hell did this happen" can be found in your post. You talked about the weekly scandals...it just seems like that is the only play in the dem leadership political playbook...keep looking for a Watergate-style scandal simply because it worked once against Nixon a long, long time ago. It's like throwing up a Hail Mary pass on every play of a football game and then wondering why you keep throwing interceptions and losing games.
The following things are not Watergate...
1.The Marine who made a split second decision to use deadly force against a scumbag who just got done firing at our boys from a mosque.
2.The Abu Ghrab photos. Someone tell me what releasing more photos will do to help our cause?
3.WMD’s (You’ve all seen the quotes from Clinton, Gore, Kennedy, Kerry, etc from 1998)
4.The Dick Cheney shooting incident.
5.The Hurricane Katrina response.
6.ID being taught in schools
7.A Gay Marriage Amendment
8.Anything regarding terrorists being "tortured"
9.A Koran "supposedly" being flushed down the toilet at Guantanamo
10.Most importantly, the NSA deal. I think I’ll talk about this one a little more seeing as Russ Feingold recently brought up a motion in the Senate to which the rest of the dems ran from 3 times when Frist called for a vote (clearly they don’t want to actually take a stand on this, they just want the issues in the headlines).
Nowadays terrorists use throw away cell phones, so if you want critical information to abort say, an attack on a school, or a mall, or a stadium, and so forth, you have only a narrow window to act and now we have these these civil liberties absolutists arguing that since ONE end of the conversation is in America that means that the President can't use the tools needed and available to save lives. Impeachable offense? I think it would be impeachable if he had NOT authorized the NSA to do this.
FISA was written for a time (1978) when throw away cell phones, IM's, websites, internet cafes, and wireless communication did not exist. Given that I can go to Civil Liberties-inspired FEC website and find out say, the political donations of the Nation's top staffers (thanks to McCain-Feingold) I find some peoples willingness to potentially trade lives that could be saved for protecting the rights of potential terrorists absurd. It's akin to the ACLU claiming that DNA analysis is an unreasonable search and seizure, given the ability to establish absolutely the facts of a criminal case. Technology has moved on, and it's time for the law to move on with it.
There is no way to know in advance which conversation is entirely innocent, and which has information that could stop a plot to say, massacre hundreds of people or the nuking of a city. If Bush was spying on John Kerry or Cindy Sheehan, then you would have an issue. Spying on Mohammed the terrorist in the U.S. as he talks with his contacts in the Middle East is not a problem. Terrorists shouldn't be able to work their nefarious plans under the cover of our civil rights. Unless the political left has absolute evidence of misuse of the NSA program I’d suggest shutting the hell up on this issue.
You want checks and balances? Congress maybe? Let’s look at Patrick Leahy, democrat of Vermont, who to this day still has access to classified information.
* Leahy "inadvertently" disclosed a top-secret communications intercept during a 1985 television interview. The intercept had made possible the capture of the Arab terrorists who had hijacked the cruise ship Achille Lauro and murdered American citizens. But Leahy's leak he cost the life of at least one Egyptian "asset" involved in the operation.
* In July 1987, it was reported that Leahy leaked secret information about a 1986 covert operation planned by the Reagan administration to topple Libya's Moammar Gaddhafi. US intelligence officials stated that Leahy sent a written threat to expose the operation directly to then-CIA Director William Casey. Weeks later, news of the secret plan turned up in the Washington Post, causing it to be aborted.
* A year later, as the Senate was preparing to hold hearings on the Iran-Contra scandal, Leahy was forced to resign the Senate Intelligence Committee after he was caught leaking secret information to a reporter. The Vermont Democrat's Iran-Contra leak was considered to be one of the most serious breaches of secrecy in the committee's 28-year history. After Leahy's resignation, the Senate Intelligence Committee decided to restrict access to committee documents to a security-enhanced meeting room.
(and with regards to your last paragraph John)
* In 2001 it was Leahy who told a "journalist" that we were monitoring Bin Laden's personal cell phone. The info was put out in the underground media (internet sites, etc) and Bin Laden quickly changed his methods of communication. 6 months later, 9/11 happened.
The other part of the answer to "How did this all happen?" can be found in the non-response I got to my request to have someone on here provide us examples of Hillary’s steadfast leadership on the key issues our country faces as well as the non-response I got to my question about how exposing the NSA program helps our cause aginst being hit again in this country by Al Queda. No candidate has ever won on an "anti" theme and GWB isn’t going to be on the ballot on 08 and he’s not going to be impeached over this NSA deal. Now I’m not asking anyone on here to defend the actions of top democrats or the democratic leadership, just that you might want to concentrate on telling people why they should vote democrat without ragging on GWB.
One thing I did notice though, Markadelphia started this discussion by talking about supposed government screw-ups (Katrina, the War, the NSA deal) then John posts his reasoning for the government TAKING OVER the entire health care system. I mean if you distrust government so much and if our government is so corrupt why advocate that government take over our health care system?
Crab, as always you have some good points, but you dodge key issues by slipping into the same fault-finding tactics that you say you don't respect in others. I said there are no checks and balances anymore and you respond with Patrick Leahey. So, he is a loudmouth who has cost people lives...and Scooter Libby or Karl Rove or whoever outed Valerie Plame can't be blamed for the same thing...perhaps not in quality, but certainly in principle. My point simply was that if the Republicans want something in the House or Senate, it happens because there is a majority in both. If the executive branch wants something, they do it and don't have to answer to anyone. This is a serious problem any way you cut it. You seem to support many of the decisions this administration has made. What if the question was governmental health or universal education through the college level? Wouldn't you want there to be some way in which there would be discussion and even a possibility that your voice or point of view might be incorporated into the discussion? If you say "no" than I simply don't believe you. You will undoubtedly counter with "well, this is what the people wanted and voted for and so it is." Okay. I can see that, but if those people were duped into voting the way they did by false advertising that covered a hidden agenda that revolved around perpetually being in power, then we are all getting screwed here. Nowhere in American history has it ever been okay to keep one party in a ruling position. There is that checks and balances thing again.
As for Hillary...I have sincere doubts about her abilities to take this nation where it needs to go. I know she has her supporters here on this blog, but I am not one of them. She has yet to demonstrate her worthiness as a candidate and quite frankly, if she is tied into these dark, power brokering groups, all the more reason to distrust her. I am tired of the wolves in sheeps skin routine. Leave that to Dick Cheney and George Bush.
As for health care...this is another topic altogether. You cannot possibly deny there is a problem in this country unless you are willing to ignore it because it doesn't affect you. You and I may not have an answer, but goddamit we had better start putting some brain trust people on this problem and find a solution. Preferably not the same people who orchestrated the war in Iraq. Government run healthcare works in many places and although I have heard many complaints from certain elements of the Republican party, those complaints are non-descript and revolve around intangible things like lack of incentive for the creation of new cures and technologies. Maybe we need to return to the medical field mentality of pre-insurance days where the patient and population health came first over the gouging of people for money. Maybe doctors should care more about people and less about their fucking pocketbook. I am fairly certain that the Hipocratic oath doesn't say anything about how much cash is appropriate for stuffing ones pocket.
I agree that living in the states is a good thing. I don't know if living some place else would be better, the people I know from other countries liked it where they lived too and seemed to be getting along fine without living in places that start wars with other countries on trumped up charges. What makes our system interesting is that it has the POTENTIAL to have the inherent corruption checked internally. When those checks are undermined by superceding the laws in that are currently in place (the NSA wire tapping, holding US citizens without trial, etc) then we are ALL heading down a path that with minor fluctuations on the socio-political scale is undesirable. This is not the government I want nor the social environment I want to live in.
By exposing the NSA wire-tapping we are looking at the lengths at which an administration will go to enforce its will upon the people. You have to figure that We The People get exposed to a small percentage of the foreign policy and internal security measures that are implemented. If there is wire-tapping going on, what else is there that we don't know about? How does that help us fight terrorism...it doesn't. You know what though, people in this country think that additional attacks can be stopped and that is an illusion to help people cope. Just like it is an illusion that we can destroy "the Terrorists." I have said it before and will say it again...we could not possibly kill all of the potential terrorists out there. When we mow down 1500 in Fallujah, 3000 more arise to take their place. That is the nature of the beast, a many headed hydra that can not be defeated through strength of arms. This isn't the early 1900's anymore with standing armies that wage wars face to face. When cell phone use becomes limited they will find the next technology to replace it. Find the root of the terrorism and deal with that. That IS the answer. Everything else is a political/economic agenda. We should all know better by now.
I wrote the last comment...screwed the pooch when signing in.
I was just thinking about what I wrote and it occured to me just how important our system of government is. It really does have the potential to be balanced and when it is that way, everyone prospers. We should not be content to say that corruption is everywhere in politics and leave it at that. We live in the greatest nation on earth, the most daring social and political experiment that has EVER existed. We should never be happy, content or even mildly apathetic to see the system undermined by greedy, power-hungry people who look for loophole after loophole to have their own way without discussion, without oversight. Lack of education coupled with fear have allowed this to happen. Fear of what someone might do, sometime in an unknowable future. Yes, 3000 people died on 9-11, should that mean that for the rest of my natural life, I should live in fear and unquestioning loyalty to a group of people who have demonstrated repeatedly that the only thing that is important to them is their financial well-being? Fuck that.
I hate this administration because they don't respect the governmental system of this country and they don't care enough about the ENTIRE population to temper their judgements or actions. They are ANTI-AMERICAN and although I have consistently disagreed with certain things that Crab and PL and Just Dave have said, I consider you patriots and real Americans with things to say that are important and worth considering.
It really is time for change in Washington. I pray to the gods-that-be that someone, politicians or lay people, step up to the plate and make some changes before we are stuck with what we have now.
I think Russ Feingold is one of the last true patriots. He is taking shit from his own party as well as the right wing propaganda machine. And why?
Because he wants to censure President Bush which essentially means scold him. He thinks the president broke the law. I think he might be right.
What is not right is how the current ruling class of this country has made people like Feingold look like criminals or traitors.
As a great man once said (at 2:02 PM on March 16th, 2006)
"I should live in fear and unquestioning loyalty to a group of people who have demonstrated repeatedly that the only thing that is important to them is their financial well-being? Fuck that."
Hell for all I care if Scooter or Hot Karl are found guilty of the same thing throw em in jail, no skin off my nose.
If the issue was Universal healthcare or Universal education through the college level I’d like to see the details of the plan. No doubt there would be benefits for all of us in both of those ideas. However, like our policy in Afghanistan in the 1980’s, I think Universal healthcare may solve 1 problem but create several more. Sure Sweden has universal healthcare, you are taken care of from womb to tomb. Too bad their income tax rate is about 70%. Universal healthcare would virtually eliminate private insurance firms, causing more unemployment and more loss of tax revenue, thereby requiring even higher tax rates. Sucking money out of the economy in taxes for government programs deprives capital for investment in things that actually creates jobs and when you create jobs you get tax revenue. Oh yeah, something we’ve talked about before, tort reform and malpractice caps. Cap the difficult to define "pain & suffering" at $250k so that the person would have all his/her medical needs taken care of yet they would not be bankrupting the system and enriching the trial lawyers with a ridiculous award. Malpractice caps have already worked in Oregon. Under the Oregon law, it is illegal for a lawyer to take a percentage of the winnings and (just by PURE coincidence I’m sure) Oregon has the lowest healthcare premiums in the nation. Canada actually has a “waiting list” for many surgeries, sometimes up to a 6 month wait. I can’t see our fast food society waiting for things like that. The government never ever runs anything efficiently, nor cheaply.
So there needs to be a scheme devised that gives the best of both worlds, like the Oregon plan. In that plan there is actually a partnership between industry and government providing the best healthcare at the cheapest costs. I agree with you that more can be done.
I admire the fact that you admit you don’t have all the answers because those people who think they have all the answers really piss off those of us who actually do have all the answers. ; )
I don’t think we have a "right to know" about all actions taking place with regards to national security as I think some things are classified for a good reason...front page news stories that reveal sources or methods do nothing to help the cause against Al Queda.
My bad on the Leahy bit...I didn’t mean for it to sound like I thought he was the end all/be all for my argument but I can see where it could be viewed that way.
The "root of all terrorism" to me has just as much to do with the conditions under which many of those people live as well as our past foreign policy fuckups. I think free people, living under freely elected governments, with a free press and with economies and education systems that enable their young people to achieve their full potential, don't spend a lot of time thinking about who to hate, who to blame, and who to lash out at. I could care less if young Muslims don’t like us. I want them to like and respect themselves, their own countries and their own governments. I want them to have the same luxury to ignore America as young Taiwanese have - because they are too busy focusing on improving their own lives and governance, running for office, studying anything they want or finding good jobs in their own countries.
Regarding "living in fear and unquestioning loyalty", living in fear is an individual choice and nobody is asking for unquestioning loyalty. To me, some groups (not John or Markkkadelphia) demanding more Abu Gharab photos be released, demanding lawyers for Al Queda prisoners in Guantanamo, advocating government takeover of entire industries, people demanding impeachment and fighting for their own set of absolutes when they rail against tools like NSA and the Partiot Act which COULD be used to prevent another 9/11, goes beyond just questioning authority. I agree that things have to change, I just don’t agree with the ways the left has gone about it thus far. How do I know the NSA COULD be used to prevent an attack?...check out this story...
"News of a planned attack masterminded by three Algerians operating out of Italy was widely reported outside the U.S. but went virtually unreported in the American media. Italian authorities recently announced that they had used wiretaps to uncover the conspiracy to conduct a series of major attacks inside the U.S. Italian Interior Minister Giuseppe Pisanu said the planned attacks would have targeted stadiums, ships and railway stations, and the terrorists' goal, he said, was to exceed the devastation caused by 9/11.
Italian authorities stepped up their internal surveillance programs after July's terrorist bombings in London. Their domestic wiretaps picked up phone conversations by Algerian Yamine Bouhrama that discussed terrorist attacks in Italy and abroad. Italian authorities arrested Bouhrama on November 15 and he remains in prison. Authorities later arrested two other men, Achour Rabah and Tartaq Sami, who are believed to be Bouhrama's chief aides in planning the attacks. The arrests were a major coup for Italian anti-terror forces, and the story was carried in most major newspapers from Europe to China. "U.S. terror attacks foiled," read the headline in England's Sunday Times. In France, a headline from Agence France Presse proclaimed, "Three Algerians arrested in Italy over plot targeting U.S.""
Curiously, what was deemed worthy of a worldwide media blitz abroad was virtually ignored by the U.S. media. Coincidentally, the NSA program was a major news story over here at the time. Hmmmm...
Post a Comment