Despicable: The President as Hitler

Where was the outrage then?

Top Stories

Obama’s Gitmo

The Next Guantánamo
The New York Times, Editorial, April 12, 2009

The Obama administration is basking in praise for its welcome commitment to shut down the American detention center at Guantánamo Bay. But it is acting far less nobly when it comes to prisoners held at a larger, more secretive military detention facility at Bagram Air Base in Afghanistan. [full article]

Commentary

As a Senator and as a presidential candidate, Obama repeatedly and forcefully said that he thought prisoner held at Guantanamo deserved the right to challenge their detention in a U.S. court. Now on the same issue, but a different facility, he is singing a different tune.

Recently the United States District Court for the District of Columbia ruled that non-Afghan detainees at the US Bagram Prison in Afghanistan captured outside Afghanistan had the same due process rights that the Supreme Court last year gave to prisoners at Guantánamo. At issue were three prisoners at Bagram, two from Yemen and one from Tunisia, held by the U.S. military at the Bagram facility in Afghanistan without charges for more than six years. The Court ruled they have a right to challenge their detention in U.S. courts. The Obama administration is appealing the ruling.

I am not quite sure how I feel about the whole issue of giving captured prisoners due process rights. I oppose extending constitutional protection to captured POW’s. We should follow the Geneva Convention and established rules of war. However, in an unconventional war, how does one determine if someone is an “enemy combatants” or someone who just got rounded up accidentally? When the enemy is not the army of an opposing nation and wears no uniform, it makes the rules a little murky. I don’t want to turn loose terrorist to kill again, however we should not hold indefinitely people who may be innocent. While the issues are not simple, the Court has ruled narrowly and I think wisely. I think the Bush administration was wrong and the Court was correct.

The issue regarding Bagram is exactly the same as at Guantanamo and the position of the Obama administration is exactly the same as the position of the Bush administration. Obama is appealing the ruling and arguing that the ruling would “impose serious practical burdens on, and potential harm to, the Government and its efforts to prosecute the war in Afghanistan.” Does that sound familiar?

The NY Times has taken issue with Obama on his reaction to the court ruling, but most of the establishment is keeping quite. It seems Obama can do no wrong even when his position is indistinguishable from the Bush position on the same issue. Where are all of those voices that condemned Bush? Were they expressing a principled conviction or just anti-Bush? Do I detect some hypocrisy? Either Bush and Obama are right; or, Bush and Obama are wrong.

Top Stories

Bush orders emergency bailout of the auto industry

The AP just reported: “Citing imminent danger to the national economy, President Bush ordered an emergency bailout of the U.S. auto industry Friday, offering $17.4 billion in rescue loans and demanding tough concessions from the deeply troubled carmakers and their workers.”

It looks like President Bush has determined to take one more dictatorial action before he leaves office and again give the Constitution the middle finger. I would like to throw a shoe at him.

The auto bailout failed. Congress has spoken. We live in a Democracy with an elected legislature and when Congress voted against the bailout that was supposed to end it. The Troubled Asset Relief Program was not passed to become the President’s private slush fund. Congress did not give Bush a blank check to spend that money however he wanted. The TARP was clearly appropriated to purchase troubled assets from financial institutions and restore liquidity to the market. It is illegal to take money specifically appropriated for one purpose and spend it on something else. If Congress appropriates money for children’s health care, is it OK if a president takes it and uses it to fund a military campaign? There is no difference. I more upset by the abuse of power than I am that the auto industry will get the bailout. If this is the way we are going to do business, we might as well abolish Congress and vest all power in a single individual.

Since the majority of the Democrats desire to bail out the auto industry, they won’t challenge Bush on this decision. Republicans, most of whom do not want the bailout, won’t mount a challenge a President of their own party who is on his way out the door. Bush will get by with this abuse of power.

For Democrats, I am convinced that what is achieved is much more important than how it is achieved and for Republicans, I am convinced that party is more important than principle. No one gives a damn about the separation of powers and the Constitution.

I am glad the Bush era is over, but with an acquiescent Congress and a public that doesn’t give a damn, I don’t expect any restraint on Obama or any future Presidents who may decide to rule dictatorially. I don’t expect Obama to govern with any greater respect for the Constitution than Bush; Obama has praised Bush’s decision.

I don’t expect it, but I hope someone in Congress has the balls to challenge the legality of the Presidents decision to commit this abuse of power.

Top Stories

Bush to Declare Martial Law

Generally reading more conservative Blogs and chat groups than liberal blogs and groups, I have tended to think we on the right had a lot of nuts among us. However, in the last couple days I have been exploring the left side of the blogosphere and talk about nuts; the left may have more of the Tinfoil Hat Crowd than we do.

You would think the left would be joyous that they have won the recent election, and most lefties are; however, there is this contingency that really can’t enjoy their victory because they believe that there will be a right wing coup between now and inauguration day. They are really worried about it. They are downright gloomy. Many of them thought it would happen before the election, but now that Bush-Cheney allowed the election to occur, they think it will happen between now and inauguration day.

Type into Goggle “Bush to declare martial law” and you get 257,000 hits! There are whole websites devoted to the topic. Troops are coming home from Iraq. Good news? Nope! They are being brought home to take part in the coup.

Many think that Bush will start a war with Iran and use the unrest that would follow as an excuse to declare marshal law and prevent Obama from taking office. Others think that the excuse will be tied to the financial crisis.

Remember Naomi Wolf? She was the “third wave” feminist who a few years back gained notoriety for promoting the view that a woman’s desire to lose weight and look attractive was evidence of oppression. She is best known perhaps as the consultant to Al Gore who was paid a salary of thousands of dollars a month to tell Al how to appeal to women voters and which tie to wear. Well, Wolf is a big proponent of this view that a coup is imminent. Another person who has been warning of a coming coup is Ralph Nader. Lou Dobbs is also helping spread this fear as are web sites such as Daily Kos and the popular chat group Secular Humanist. I am not going to post a bunch of links or Youtube videos but if you doubt me, do the goggle search for yourself.

The Internet is a wonderful thing, but it does allow the nuts to get together. Those who read nothing but postings from other nuts can feel that they are the only one who possess the truth and know what is really going on. They can feel empowered, being part of what they perceive as a large movement. It can make them think that their nuttiness is normal.

Aware of all the crazies who believed that 9-11 was an inside job, I guess nothing should surprise me. It is disturbing, however, to think that so many people really expect a military coup in America. They don't just think it is possible, they expect it. There is one thing that is reassuring about this: I was concerned about the right-wingers who are stockpiling weapons in anticipation of Obama taking office, fearful that an Obama Presidency would spell the end of a free America and a revolution may be necessary. I was beginning to think the Republican party attracted a lot of nuts and maybe we were the party of stupid people. It is comforting to know that there are just as many, and maybe more, nuts on the other side.

Top Stories

Scott McClellan and the Bush Legacy

Top Stories

Scott McClellan owes us more

Scott McClellan on Countdown with Keith Olberman, Part 1

I urge you to watch this clip of Scott McClellan being interviewed by Keith Olberman to discuss his new book, What Happened Inside the Bush White House and Washington's Culture of Deception.

Here are some quotes from the interview:

“I got caught up in the Washington game in terms of spinning and obfuscation, secrecy, and stonewalling and things like that”.

“The intelligence was packaged together in such a way as to make it sound more ominous and grave and urgent than it really was.”

“What I get to in this book is so important to understand, so we can learn from this and not make these mistakes again where we are rushing into a war that now is very clearly one that was unnecessary.”

I appreciate Scott McClellan for writing this book. It is important that the truth be told. However, for McClellan to bear his soul and feel cleansed and make a handsome profit off of the book in the process is not very satisfying. Over 4000 American service men have been killed, approximately 85,000 Iraqi are dead, the war has cost of over $2 trillion, and it has left the mid-east destabilized and the world less safe. McClellan should not only tell the truth, he should apologize for his role in this unnecessary war, donate all profits from the book to a worthy cause and commit the rest of his life to the cause of good government. He should atone for his sins.

Top Stories

EX-Bush Aide McClellan Says Public was Misled on Iraq

By Edwin Chen and Holly Rosenkrantz

May 28 (Bloomberg) -- Former White House press secretary Scott McClellan says in a memoir that President George W. Bush manipulated public opinion through a ``political propaganda campaign'' to justify going to war in Iraq.

McClellan, a longtime Bush loyalist from his Texas days, also writes that the news media largely failed to critically examine the administration's justifications for invading Iraq, according to a copy of the book obtained by Bloomberg News. The book is scheduled to be sold in bookstores next week.

The memoir, ``What Happened: Inside the Bush White House and Washington's Culture of Deception,'' adds to the record of critical examinations of Bush and his administration as the president nears the end of his term. It also will bolster Democratic and Republican opponents of the war. ( link)

Comment: If anyone still doubts that we were lied to and manipulated into an unnecessary war with Iraq, here is more evidence. This is not from some leftist wacko or partisan Democrat but from a former Bush loyalist. By pointing out the mistakes and lies that led us into Iraq, I am not now suggesting we should cut and run. To prematurely get out would be as foolish and dangerous as the initial invation, but the turth is important.

Top Stories

A Little Comic Relief: Bush on Global Warming

This is a very funny! This kid deserves an Oscar.

Top Stories

Bush Sought "Way" to Invade Iraq, Says O'Neill

If you missed the recent 60 Minutes program with a segment about former Treasury Secretary Paul O’Neill and his revelations about the innner workings of the Bush Administration, it is worth following this link (60 Minutes) and watching.

A new book called The Price of Loyalty has just been published that draws on interviews with several high ranking officials who gave the author their personal accounts of their experience within the Bush Administration. Paul O’Neill was the most forth coming of those interviewed for the book, not only sharing his insight but giving the authors thousands on internal Bush administration documents.

O’Neill seems appalled at the way Bush conducted the business of running the country and he has some very interesting things to say. He says that in cabinet meetings the President was "like a blind man in a roomful of deaf people.” “There was no discernible connection," forcing top officials to act "on little more than hunches about what the president might think." O’Neill says that the president did not make decisions in a methodical way and there was no free-flow of ideas or open debate.

Most interesting is O’Neill report of Bush’s obsession with Iraq from the very first National Security meeting. O’Neil recalls that during the campaign, candidate Bush had criticized the Clinton-Gore Administration for being too interventionist, but that from day one Bush was planning an invasions of Iraq. “From the very beginning, there was a conviction, that Saddam Hussein was a bad person and that he needed to go,” says O’Neill. He says that going after Saddam was topic "A" 10 days after the inauguration, eight months before Sept. 11. “From the very first instance, it was about Iraq. It was about what we can do to change this regime,” "It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying ‘Go find me a way to do this,’

I don’t guess Mr. O’Neill’s revelations should surprise any of us by this point, but they offer insight in to just what a poor leader Bush really is and offer further confirmations that the decision to invade Iraq was already made before Bush ever got elected and Bush was not to be deterred. Bush was going to have his war with Iraq no matter what.

Top Stories

Bush is the biggest spender since LBJ

David Lightman McClatchy Newspapers


WASHINGTON — George W. Bush, despite all his recent bravado about being an apostle of small government and budget-slashing, is the biggest spending president since Lyndon B. Johnson. In fact, he's arguably an even bigger spender than LBJ.


“He’s a big government guy,” said Stephen Slivinski, the director of budget studies at Cato Institute, a libertarian research group.


The numbers are clear, credible and conclusive, added David Keating, the executive director of the Club for Growth, a budget-watchdog group. “He’s a big spender,” Keating said. “No question about it.”

Take almost any yardstick and Bush generally exceeds the spending of his predecessors. To continue (Bush is Biggest Spender)

When someone ask me why I am a Republican, one of my replies is, “Because I believe in fiscal responsibility and small government.” I will have to scratch that reason off my list. Rod

Top Stories

The Bush Iraq Policy is the Only Cautious and Responsible Course, For Now.

In last night’s Presidential address on Iraq, I think the President proposed the right course of action and established a correct and cautious policy. He promised a reduction to pre-surge troop levels by next summer and promised further reductions as the situation improves.

It appears he has turned a corner. No more bravado about “staying the course” and “leaving when the job is done”. He appears to be listening to General Petreaus and accepting reality.

I watched hours of the General Petraeus congressional hearings. I was impressed by his honest, sober, realistic, and clear reports. He was guardedly optimistic but did not sugar coat things. He impressed me as someone who will not “spin” the facts but will tell the truth and give an honest assessment no matter where it leads.

While many Democrats are going to oppose Bush and try to push for an immediate pullout, it looks like Bush will prevail. As Pat Buchanan said in a recent article, "Bush is winning today because he has jettisoned the jabber about global democracy, and argues that a U.S. withdrawal risks a strategic disaster, national humiliation, massacre of our friends, and triumph for Al-Qaeda."

It seems obvious to all but the most extreme anti-Bush war critics that the surge produced positive results. The surge achieved a reduction in violence and a weakening of Al Qaeda. Not only is General Petraeus reporting this but so also are many independent observers including scholars from the liberal Brookings Institute.

The military successes however, are not achieving the objective the surge was supposed to achieve. The surge was supposed to give the Iraqi politicians breathing room in which they could achieve political reconciliation and make progress on building a nation. Of the eighteen benchmarks established to measure Iraqi progress, the Iraqis achieved only one. Iraq seems to have a lot of petty politician who lust after power but few statesmen. General Petraeus has said we cannot win a military victory without a political settlement.

We can’t defeat the enemy militarily, because the when we talk about fighting “the enemy” in Iraq the terminology does not fit the reality. The enemy is not a single military force or ideology or movement, but numerous factions vying for power. In the South of Iraq alone there are three separate Shiite factions fighting each other for control of the region. We may be able to keep events from spinning out of control but we cannot forever police the country. If the Iraqis do not want a nation, it will be hard to impose it.

I am disgusted about the lies and deceit that put us in Iraq, but we must now deal with the reality we are facing. How we got in Iraq is now less important than how we get out. As reckless as it was to go into Iraq, and as badly as the post invasion administration of Iraq was handled, to just pull out now would be more reckless than the initiation of this war in the first place.

Unfortunately, we broke it; we own it. We must figure a way out of Iraq that does not lead to a proxy war between Iran and Saudi Arabia, a Kurdish-Turkish war, genocide, ethnic cleansing and a destabilization of the entire Mid East.

If by March, when the next report is to be made to congress, if the situation is not better then than it is now, it may be time to move toward a partitioning of the country as advocated by Joe Biden or another alternative strategy. Just leaving is not a strategy. For now, I think the Bush policy is the best course of action and the only cautious and responsible thing to do.

Top Stories

Phase III of Bush's War

By Patrick J. Buchanan
Tuesday, September 4, 2007

Those who hoped that -- with the victory of the antiwar party in 2006, the departure of Rumsfeld and the neocons from the Pentagon, the rise of Condi and the eclipse of Cheney -- America was headed out of Iraq got a rude awakening. They are about to get another.

Comes now evidence congressional Democrats have not only lost the pro-victory vote, but forfeited the peace vote, as well.

Incredibly, only 3 percent of the nation gives Congress a positive rating on its handling of the war. Congress has lost the hawks, and the owls, and the doves. No one trusts its leadership on the war.

What is to prevent Bush from attacking Iran and widening the war, at a time and place of his choosing, and sooner than we think?

Nothing and no one.
(To continue reading: Phase III of Bush's War)

My Comment:
If President Bush represents the idealistic, Nation-building, Neocon wing of the Republican Party, Mr Buchanan represents the protectionist, isolationist, paleoconservative wing of the party. I am not so sure I would be any less disgruntled with a Buchanan version of the Republican Party than I am with the Bush version. Nevertheless, I am glad that we have a Buchanan to provide some balance to the Bush version. Above are excerpts from an article by Mr. Buchanan that I find informative and insightful.

It is amazing that as unpopular and as weakened as Bush has become, that the Congress is even less popular and weaker still. Was not divided government supposed to bring a return to Congressional scrutiny? Was not the Congressional election claimed by Democrats and mainstream pundits to be a referendum on the war? I did not expect the Democratic Congress to be so irresponsible as to cut off funding for troops in the field or immediately reverse policy. But, I expected more vigorous oversight and questioning of the administration and a little backbone.

Bush may be preparing to expand the war into Iran and Congress seems to be prepared to roll over and play dead.

Top Stories

Rudy: Worse Than Bush?

By Jon Wiener, TheNation.com Posted on August 1, 2007, Printed on August 1,
I am constantly amazed that Rudy Giuliani is leading the Republican pack. I am not necessarily in agreement with this article because , for one thing, I find it hard to believe anyone could be worse than Bush and I do not trust the source. Nevertheless, it does raise some important questions. Rod
In recent polls, Rudy Giuliani leads his rivals in the Republican primary race by about ten points. That's surprising, since he's been a supporter of gay rights, abortion rights and immigrant rights as well as gun control. It suggests that a President Giuliani would be better than Bush. http://www.alternet.org/story/58480/

Top Stories