Kristolnacht

Well Mr. Kristol, your message finally sunk in to the young impressionable minds on college campuses across this great land. Let's trade in those bow ties and searsuckers for jackboots and brownshirts and call it a day, hmm? Freedom of speech is a privilege, not a right, and should only be accorded to the chosen few -- in this case, only those who agree with you before they've even heard you speak:

6. College Republicans of Kalamazoo College
Here's more proof that the Republican youth of today are the Bush Brownshirts of tomorrow. It appears that certain students were barred from a recent Bush campaign rally at Kalamazoo College in Michigan when College Republicans stationed at the event identified them as liberals. Seven students - who had valid tickets for the event and were not dressed inappropriately, nor wearing any kind of political paraphernalia, were turned away by security guards at a checkpoint. According to The Nation, one of the students, Ted Hufstader, said, "They told us that we failed a background check, that we had been identified by volunteers as a potential threat, and that if we didn't leave we would be arrested." Those volunteers were College Republicans. Said Hufstader, "We were very disappointed that our peers singled us out for what they thought we might do. And we later heard they had been trained to find potential threats at the event. But we were not a threat. We're even friends with some of these College Republicans. This was a sad commentary about the bitter divide of American politics. Look how hard it was for us to hear a contrary view. We wanted to see the president and then talk about what he said afterward. We felt like we were being blacklisted by our campus peers, and this is a campus that is supposed to be open to different political views." Heh, sorry Ted. You're in Bush's America now. You'd better start bowing down before Our Great Leader if you want to get anywhere.

Normally I leave it to Rob to post this week's Top 10 Conservative Idiots, but this little item has more the character of a newsflash -- or should I say a dummy run to the preapproved smashing of plate-glass windows?

Here's a little century-sucking history from the last millennium:

1933. Jan. 30. Adolf Hitler is appointed Chancellor and Franz von Papen Vice Chancellor.

Feb. 15. Minister Goering instructs all Prussian provincial governors and vice-governors that all political meetings are to be policed by Nazi storm troops.

Feb. 28. By presidential decree, all constitutional guarantees of private property, personal liberty, freedom of the press, secrecy of postal communications, and the right to hold meetings and form associations are suspended. The Government is authorized to seize the executive power in any German State. All Communist newspapers in Germany and all Socialist papers in Prussia are suppressed until after the March 5 elections.

March 5. Elections for the Reichstag. The National Socialist party gains 93 seats, obtaining a total of 288. This gives the National Socialists and Nationalists a clear majority in the Reichstag. On the same day, elections to the Prussian Diet result in an overwhelming victory for the National Socialists.

March 6. Executive power is seized by the Reich Government in the Free Cities of Hamburg, Bremen, and Lubeck. The authorities of the State of Hesse are replaced by a Reich Commissioner.

March 8. The Reich government seizes police power in the States of Saxony, Baden, Wurttemberg, and Schaumburg-Lippe, leaving Bavaria the only state not under Nazi direction.

March 9. Bavaria is placed under National Socialist control.

March 23. The Enabling Act is passed (441-94), transforming the Hitler Cabinet into a dictatorship. This gives the Cabinet authority to make laws by decree for four years. The Reichstag is indefinitely adjourned.

April 1. Under the Enabling Act, the Hitler government rules that all State diets (except those elected March 5) are to be dissolved and that State governments have authority to rule by decree. All municipal diets and councils of small communities are likewise dissolved. Provincial legislative bodies shall not be elected until new Reichstag elections are held and the dissolution of the Reichstag shall dissolve these bodies. The ban on the Communist party is legalized and the election of Communist deputies on March 5 to the Reichstag and Prussian Diet is revoked.

April 4. Minister Goering announces that "all persons" must have a police permit to leave Germany. On April 5 this regulation is revoked as regards foreigners.

April 8. By cabinet decree, Germany is converted into a centralized State, Chancellor Hitler becoming governor of Prussia with the power to propose for appointment by the President governors for the States. Hitler appoints Hermann Goering as Premier of Prussia.

April 27. A secret political police force is established in Prussia.

May 2. The headquarters of the trade unions, labor banks, and consumers' co-operatives are occupied by National Socialist storm troops.

May 10. The students in the universities throughout Germany burn books which they consider "un-Germanic."

June 22. The Government dissolves the German Social Democratic party, ousting its representatives from seats in the Reichstag and other representative assemblies, depriving civil servants and public employees of their pay and pension until they resign from the party, prohibiting the publication of newspapers or periodicals by the party, and confiscating property of the party.

June 27. The Nationalist party "is voluntarily dissolved by agreement."

July 2. A new law prohibits the employment of "non-Aryans" (Jews) as officials of the Reich -- the States, municipalities, or municipal associations, or any other kind of public or legal corporation, institution, or endowment.

July 5. The Centrist party and the Bavarian People's party are dissolved.

July 14. Cabinet adopts decrees confiscating all property of individuals or organizations adjudged hostile to the State; and the seizure of property and withdrawal of citizenship of critics of the government who refuse to return to Germany.

Oct. 14. The German Government officially withdraws from the Arms Conference at Geneva.

Oct. 19. Germany formally notifies the Secretariat of withdrawal from the League of Nations.

Nov. 19. A plebiscite, held to endorse the government's policy of withdrawal from the disarmament conference and League of Nations, results in a favorable vote of 40,583,000 as against 2,052,000. for the election of candidates to the Reichstag the National Socialist candidates, being the only ones, received 39,642,000, against 3,348,000 votes.

Dec. 18. As a result of six laws, the powers of provincial governors are increased and membership in provincial, communal, and municipal assemblies becomes appointive with only advisory functions.

Dec. 20. It is announced that 40,000 Germans are liable to sterilization because of hereditary disease.

That came from Webster's New International Dictionary, Second Edition (unabridged) with Reference History, from the mid 1930s. The historians could only write this chronology up to December 1933.

I wonder if they knew what was coming.

.

- Michael 9:37 PM - [PermaLink] -

----

Today's GOP 100% opposite of the 2000 GOP

A post from the Daily Kos: Flip Flopping? Try the 2000 Republican Party Platform

The following quotes are drawn from the Republican Party Platform at the 2000 convention:

"The arrogance, inconsistency, and unreliability of the administration's diplomacy have undermined American alliances, alienated friends, and emboldened our adversaries." [ed. this is referring to Clinton's administration]

"Gerrymandered congressional districts are an affront to democracy and an insult to the voters. We oppose that and any other attempt to rig the electoral process."

"Nor should the intelligence community be made the scapegoat for political misjudgments. A Republican administration working with the Congress will respect the needs and quiet sacrifices of these public servants as it strengthens America's intelligence and counter-intelligence capabilities and reorients them toward the dangers of the future."

....

The following quote comes from the Democratic Party Platform of the same year, and is the only section of either party platform that mentions Osama bin Laden or specific tactics, like breaking up cells and going after terrorist financing, for dealing with international terrorism:

"Whether terrorism is sponsored by a foreign nation or inspired by a single fanatic individual, such as Osama Bin Laden, Forward Engagement requires trying to disrupt terrorist networks, even before they are ready to attack. We must improve coordination internationally and domestically to share intelligence and develop operational plans. We must continue the comprehensive approach that has resulted in the development of a national counter-terrorism strategy involving all arms and levels of our government. We must continue to target terrorist finances, break up support cells, and disrupt training. And we must close avenues of cyber-attack by improving the security of the Internet and the computers upon which our digital economy exists."

- rob 6:17 PM - [PermaLink] -

----

Losing the NY Post

In the post below we see that the NY Times has taken off the kids gloves when it comes to dealing with Rummy, but now we see that even the NY Post is letting him have it:

WHY THE TROOPS DON'T TRUST RUMMY (The NY Post even has headlines that yell on the web - isn't that cute)

May 14, 2004 -- ACCORDING to his handlers, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld went to Baghdad to "boost troop morale." The best way the SecDef could improve morale would be to resign.
...

Should Rumsfeld resign over the prisoner abuse by rogue MPs? No. He should resign for the good of our military and our country. Those twisted photos are only one symptom of how badly the Rumsfeld era has derailed our military.

Rumsfeld has maintained a positive image with much of America because he controls information fanatically and tolerates no deviation from the party line. Differing opinions are punished in today's Pentagon - and every field general who has spoken plainly of the deficiencies of either the non-plan for the occupation of Iraq, the lack of sufficient troops (in Iraq or overall) or any aspect of Rumsfeld's "transformation" plan has seen his career ended.

It isn't treason to tell the truth in wartime. But it verges on treason to lie. And Rumsfeld lies.

- rob 6:14 PM - [PermaLink] -

----

Is the NYTimes taking the kid gloves off?

The Wrong Direction

Watching President Bush and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld this week, it was hard to avoid the sinking feeling that they had already moved on from the Abu Ghraib prison mess and were back to their well-established practice of ignoring all bad news and marching blindly ahead as if nothing unusual had happened. That was the impression that emerged from Mr. Bush's disconnected performance on Monday, when he viewed photos and video stills of the atrocious treatment of prisoners by soldiers under his and Mr. Rumsfeld's command, and then announced that the defense secretary was doing a "superb job." It was stronger than ever yesterday, during Mr. Rumsfeld's road trip to Iraq, where he drew a curious parallel between himself and Ulysses S. Grant and announced his approach to the prison scandal: "I've stopped reading newspapers."

Mr. Rumsfeld told the soldiers that they had broad public support at home despite the Abu Ghraib scandal. That is obviously true. It is also beside the point. The proper way for Mr. Bush and Mr. Rumsfeld to show support for the troops is not to use them as a screen from the heat over the mismanagement of the military prisons. It is to fix the problem, now. The solution is real changes, not cosmetic ones like yesterday's announcement that Abu Ghraib's inmates would be moved within the prison grounds to new temporary quarters, which have been dubbed Camp Redemption.
...

There are things Mr. Bush can do quickly to demonstrate the American commitment to the decent treatment of Iraqi prisoners without jeopardizing the fairness of the coming trials of the soldiers charged with inexcusable actions at Abu Ghraib. The first is to drop the Camp Redemption foolishness, remove the prisoners from Abu Ghraib and raze the entire compound, a symbol of Saddam Hussein's reign of terror that has become a symbol of American brutality. Beyond that, the president should take these steps:

• Order Mr. Rumsfeld to get military intelligence personnel out of the business of overseeing the detention and interrogation of Iraqi prisoners; an overwhelming majority of the prisoners have no intelligence value.
• Ban private contractors from American military prisons.
• Take all of the available trained military prison guards and send them to Iraq to relieve the exhausted troops who are doing work for which they were never prepared.
• Order Mr. Rumsfeld to immediately issue new regulations that not only say that prisoners and detainees must be treated according to the letter and spirit of the Geneva Conventions, but also ban, one by one, the harsh practices inflicted on prisoners.

Mr. Bush and Mr. Rumsfeld should also stop trying to dump the blame on the shoulders of America's enlisted men and women. The entire chain of command in Iraq must be part of the investigation. That includes Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez, the commander in Iraq who authorized the use of dogs during interrogations. Maj. Gen. Geoffrey Miller, who may have helped create the conditions that led to the outrages at Abu Ghraib, should be replaced as the head of the military prisons in Iraq.

- rob 6:11 PM - [PermaLink] -

----

Bush is 100% responsible for Nick Berg's horrible murder
Again Bush put politics ahead of America's security - and Americans die because of it

From: Clues, coincidence trailed Berg in Iraq

On Thursday, CIA officials said an analysis of the video of Berg's murder strongly indicates that the masked man who stood behind Berg, read a statement linking his murder to the abuse of Iraqi prisoners by U.S. soldiers, then cut off Berg's head, was Jordanian Islamic militant Abu Musab al Zarqawi.

The officials said Zarqawi, also a suspect in the 2002 murder of a U.S. official in Jordan, heads his own terrorist organization and maintains contact with Osama bin Laden's al Qaeda network. The United States has offered $10 million for information leading to the capture or killing of Zarqawi, whose real name is Ahmad Fadhil al Khalayleh.

Bush had multiple opportunities to get Zarqawi, but didn't take them because they'd hurt his marketing effor to get America into war with Iraq:

In June 2002, U.S. officials say intelligence had revealed that Zarqawi and members of al-Qaida had set up a weapons lab at Kirma, in northern Iraq, producing deadly ricin and cyanide.

The Pentagon quickly drafted plans to attack the camp with cruise missiles and airstrikes and sent it to the White House, where, according to U.S. government sources, the plan was debated to death in the National Security Council.

‘People were more obsessed with developing the coalition to overthrow Saddam than to execute the president’s policy of pre-emption against terrorists.’

“Here we had targets, we had opportunities, we had a country willing to support casualties, or risk casualties after 9/11 and we still didn’t do it,” said Michael O’Hanlon, military analyst with the Brookings Institution.

Four months later, intelligence showed Zarqawi was planning to use ricin in terrorist attacks in Europe.

The Pentagon drew up a second strike plan, and the White House again killed it. By then the administration had set its course for war with Iraq.

“People were more obsessed with developing the coalition to overthrow Saddam than to execute the president’s policy of preemption against terrorists,” according to terrorism expert and former National Security Council member Roger Cressey.
...

The Pentagon drew up still another attack plan, and for the third time, the National Security Council killed it.

Military officials insist their case for attacking Zarqawi’s operation was airtight, but the administration feared destroying the terrorist camp in Iraq could undercut its case for war against Saddam. Emphasis mine.

- rob 6:08 PM - [PermaLink] -

----

Berg Mystery

Weird coincidences

Berg, Al Qaeda linked before

In a bizarre coincidence, Nick Berg crossed paths with Al Qaeda years before its henchmen beheaded him, when his E-mail and password wound up in the hands of 9/11 suspect Zacarias Moussaoui.

It happened in 1999, when Berg was at the University of Oklahoma and Moussaoui was enrolled at a nearby flight school, allegedly training to be an Al Qaeda hijacker.

And for those who are wondering why Berg is wearing what looks like an american style orange prison outfit, why not go all the way out to tinfoil hat land and read: It's the same chair !!!! OMFG !!

- rob 5:59 PM - [PermaLink] -

----

If you are Catholic and vote for Bush you can't get communion - Bishop Sheridan

Bishop Issues Strong Anti-Abortion Edict

DENVER - Catholics who vote for politicians in favor of abortion rights, stem-cell research, euthanasia or gay marriage may not receive Communion until they recant and repent in the confessional, the Roman Catholic Bishop of Colorado Springs said.

Bishop Michael Sheridan's pronouncement was the strongest yet from a U.S. bishop in the debate over how faith should influence Catholics in this election year.

The discussion of withholding Holy Communion had previously been limited to politicians themselves.

Sheridan made his remarks in a May 1 pastoral letter published in the diocese's newspaper. He said he singled out abortion, stem-cell research, euthanasia and gay marriage for criticism because they are "intrinsically evil."

The letter was sent to each parish in the diocese, including 125,000 Catholics in 10 counties.

In an attempt to make Catholicism a GOP only religion Bishop Sheridan selectively chooses the "sins" a politician (and thus his/her supporters) can not support.

He also proves he is a moron. True Bush out lawed stem cell research in American (moving more jobs out of the country, plus the proceeds from any potential patents out of the country, typical Bush decison: bad for jobs, bad for lives, bad for the economy, and good for religious nuts) closing a channel of investigation that not only has the potential of saving thousands of lives, but potentially even leading to cures for altheimers and spinal cord injuries. Both Nancy Reagan and Superman are pissed at Bush for that. But Bush is the commander and chief of the armed forces, and the Pentagon is funding stem cell research in Sweden. So, Bush is directly funding stem cell research, just not in America, so he's a sinner and a hypocrite. So according to Bishop Sheridan, a vote for Bush is a vote not to receive communion.

Isn't interesting though that Sheridan has no problem having people vote for people who started a war in Iraq, a war the Pope was strongly against. And hey, doesn't the Catholic church not like capital punishment? Maybe, but Bishop Sheridan is cool with that. Hell, to him I guess gay marriage is a lot more dangerous than an unjust war that has killed 10,000 people.

- rob 5:53 PM - [PermaLink] -

----

The Nazis

B wondered why we put Baathist generals in charge of Falluja, likening it to restoring Nazis to power in postwar Germany. Here's a little more on that subject, regarding Nazis who live right down the street, next to your house and mine:

The American government worked closely with Nazi war criminals and collaborators, allowing many of them to live in the United States after World War II, and paying others who worked for West Germany's secret service, according to declassified documents from the F.B.I., C.I.A. and other intelligence agencies released Thursday.

"We had assumed that the I.N.S. dropped the ball, making only perfunctory background checks on these people," Mr. Goda [an Ohio University history professor whose examination of the material is included in the book, "U.S. Intelligence and the Nazis"] said. "But the records show that immigration officials did investigate and tried to have these people deported."

"The problem," he said, "was that there were preferences in the C.I.A. and the F.B.I.," particularly of J. Edgar Hoover, the F.B.I. director, "to keep these people in the country so they could report on any Communist trends inside their own community."

Ultimately, Mr. Goda concluded, "such men added nothing except grist for the mill for their own propaganda."

Mr. Goda and other historians who studied the documents said that at least five associates of the Nazi leader Adolf Eichmann, each of whom had a significant role in Hitler's campaign to kill Jews, had worked for the C.I.A. The records also indicate that the C.I.A. tried to recruit another two dozen war criminals or Nazi collaborators. Some of them received employment and, in two cases, United States citizenship, according to the documents. The documents did not deal with those people who concealed their Nazi pasts in order to gain entry into the United States.

Also, several dozen people with criminal or dubious backgrounds were paid by the United States while they were employed by West Germany's secret service.

So there you go. It was "don't ask, don't tell." Kind of like the American military.

- Michael 3:23 PM - [PermaLink] -

----

Those who enjoy good political satire, might enjoy the musical renditions of Rummy's comments at past news conferences.

Thanks to Wonkette for pointing to it on her fabu blog.

- B 6:28 PM - [PermaLink] -

----

What does "Republican" mean?

Recently someone asked on this blog why we "liberals hate Republicans." Speaking for myself, I do not for the record hate Republicans; I hate hypocrites who turn the meaning of words on their heads for power and profit, and carry the rest of the nation along like dolphins in a illegal trawler's fishing net: first to trick them to come near the boat, then to kill and eat them later, in recalcitrant defiance of every international law. According to my dictionary (in this case, Webster's 10th), republican as an adjective means "of, relating to, or constituting the one of the two major political parties evolving in the U.S. in the mid-19th century that is usu. primarily associated with business, financial, and some agricultural interests and is held to favor a restricted governmental role in economic life." So when we vote, if you pull the lever for a Republican, in theory you're pulling the lever for these principles, even if you're unsure about where the candidate actually stands on the issues. Most of us have been raised in one political party or another, and we tend to vote that way, even if we've never heard of the person we're voting for. In the case of national elections and primaries, one hopes that you may in fact be more familiar with what interests your candidate represents, although nowadays it's almost impossible to tell. To be informed, you must teach yourself to read between the lines, and that involves more than a passing acquaintance with realpolitik -- that is, politics based on practical and material factors rather than on theoretical or ethical objectives.

So during the last presidential election, Bush the conservative Republican candidate ran on a platform of states' rights, limited, scaled-back federal government, an economic plan that was purported to favor the middle class in the form of tax cuts and rebates, a repudiation of the value of international nation-building, and a strong belief in federalism on the Supreme Court, which defines itself as restricting so-called judicial activism, practicing instead a "constructionist" interpretation of the U.S. Constitution, which is another way of saying "a literal reading of" or "by the very words as written." So if you voted for Bush, you voted for these ideas.

I ask you now, Libertarians, Republicans, Undecideds, whoever voted in the last election whose candidate is now in office, did you get what you voted for? Or did you simply vote out the last bum, never mind what happened to your party in the meantime? And how many are voting the same way again? This isn't a question about who I hate; it's a question about who you voted for. Clinton betrayed his party; I didn't vote for him a second time. Bush betrayed your party. Will you vote for him again, anyway? What does that say about representation, and your affiliation with your party's values? Who's really being represented by this administration, whose interests are being served? That's what this is about. If you think I'm full of ideological shit, I'd like to know how your republican values are being served by this interesting tidbit that rolls back all your American freedoms:

The A.C.L.U. is contesting a provision of the [U.S. Patriot Act] law that allows the Federal Bureau of Investigation to require telephone, Internet and other communications companies to provide basic information about their customers, including addresses and call records. The F.B.I. sends a subpoena, known as a national security letter, which includes an order barring the company from informing the customer of the investigation or discussing it with anyone.

The F.B.I. can acquire data on customers even if they are not suspected of terrorist activity.

The suit is brought by the civil liberties group and another plaintiff described only as a recipient of an antiterrorism letter. The A.C.L.U. said it was barred from providing any other information about the other plaintiff.

"It isn't even clear that a recipient can speak to a lawyer," said Ann Beeson, the associate legal director at the A.C.L.U. who is handling the case.

In recent days, President Bush and Attorney General John Ashcroft have vigorously defended the antiterrorism law, which was enacted in October 2001.

Almost nothing is known about the F.B.I.'s use of the subpoenas. The bureau has not said how many letters it sent or what the results were.

The A.C.L.U. argues that the F.B.I. letters are unconstitutional because they violate the due process rights of the businesses and people who receive them, and because the order prohibiting discussion of the investigation violates free expression rights. The group contends that the government should be required to seek approval from a judge before issuing a letter and recipients should have a way to question the order.

In other words, a watchdog group whose sole existence is to protect your civil liberties filed the suit under seal, otherwise "they would be in violation of the law the case was devised to contest."

That, my friends, is what Republican means in today's America, and I hope you know what you're voting for when you check that box, because your candidate is anything but candid.

- Michael 6:19 PM - [PermaLink] -

----

Bush administration has used 27 rationales for war in Iraq, study says

27 reasons they made up to go to war, and yet I don't think

• So gas prices would go up
• So 700 plus american servicemen and women would die in a foreign land at a young age
• So 10,000 plus Iraqis would die
• So Arab nations would hate America more
• So terrorist groups could have a recruiting field day
• So America would be shamed in front of the world by its abuse of prisoners under its charge
• So our national deficit could increase by additional 100 billion and counting
• So we could distract America from our inability to find bin laden
• So our war against actual terrorism would become less effective

these were on the list.

- rob 3:17 PM - [PermaLink] -

----

Leahy sticks it to Rummy at the Senate Appropriations Committee yesterday. Finally, someone willing to make some of these claims publicly.

- B 1:22 PM - [PermaLink] -

----

Dancing Alone

It is time to ask this question: Do we have any chance of succeeding at regime change in Iraq without regime change here at home?

"Hey, Friedman, why are you bringing politics into this all of a sudden? You're the guy who always said that producing a decent outcome in Iraq was of such overriding importance to the country that it had to be kept above politics."

Yes, that's true. I still believe that. My mistake was thinking that the Bush team believed it, too. I thought the administration would have to do the right things in Iraq — from prewar planning and putting in enough troops to dismissing the secretary of defense for incompetence — because surely this was the most important thing for the president and the country. But I was wrong. There is something even more important to the Bush crowd than getting Iraq right, and that's getting re-elected and staying loyal to the conservative base to do so. It has always been more important for the Bush folks to defeat liberals at home than Baathists abroad. That's why they spent more time studying U.S. polls than Iraqi history. That is why, I'll bet, Karl Rove has had more sway over this war than Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs Bill Burns. Mr. Burns knew only what would play in the Middle East. Mr. Rove knew what would play in the Middle West.

I admit, I'm a little slow. Because I tried to think about something as deadly serious as Iraq, and the post- 9/11 world, in a nonpartisan fashion — as Joe Biden, John McCain and Dick Lugar did — I assumed the Bush officials were doing the same. I was wrong. They were always so slow to change course because confronting their mistakes didn't just involve confronting reality, but their own politics.

Why, in the face of rampant looting in the war's aftermath, which dug us into such a deep and costly hole, wouldn't Mr. Rumsfeld put more troops into Iraq? Politics. First of all, Rummy wanted to crush once and for all the Powell doctrine, which says you fight a war like this only with overwhelming force. I know this is hard to believe, but the Pentagon crew hated Colin Powell, and wanted to see him humiliated 10 times more than Saddam. Second, Rummy wanted to prove to all those U.S. generals whose Army he was intent on downsizing that a small, mobile, high-tech force was all you needed today to take over a country. Third, the White House always knew this was a war of choice — its choice — so it made sure that average Americans never had to pay any price or bear any burden. Thus, it couldn't call up too many reservists, let alone have a draft. Yes, there was a contradiction between the Bush war on taxes and the Bush war on terrorism. But it was resolved: the Bush team decided to lower taxes rather than raise troop levels.

Why, in the face of the Abu Ghraib travesty, wouldn't the administration make some uniquely American gesture? Because these folks have no clue how to export hope. They would never think of saying, "Let's close this prison immediately and reopen it in a month as the Abu Ghraib Technical College for Computer Training — with all the equipment donated by Dell, H.P. and Microsoft." Why didn't the administration ever use 9/11 as a spur to launch a Manhattan project for energy independence and conservation, so we could break out of our addiction to crude oil, slowly disengage from this region and speak truth to fundamentalist regimes, such as Saudi Arabia? (Addicts never tell the truth to their pushers.) Because that might have required a gas tax or a confrontation with the administration's oil moneymen. Why did the administration always — rightly — bash Yasir Arafat, but never lift a finger or utter a word to stop Ariel Sharon's massive building of illegal settlements in the West Bank? Because while that might have earned America credibility in the Middle East, it might have cost the Bush campaign Jewish votes in Florida.

- rob 1:16 PM - [PermaLink] -

----

Senator Inhofe Petition

- rob 1:00 PM - [PermaLink] -

----

A breather from the bad news: Kerry Stronger Than Clinton



Kerry's legendary lead

In the latest Gallup poll, John Kerry leads George Bush by five points among registered voters when Nader is included, and by 6 when he is not. How do we know just how strong a showing that is for Kerry?

Looking at the history of presidential races is one approach. No challenger has ever done as well against an elected incumbent at this point in the cycle. Every incumbent who won re-election had a double-digit lead over his challenger at this stage. Lyndon Johnson led Barry Goldwater by 59 points in the spring of ’64. Bill Clinton led Bob Dole by 14 points, Ronald Reagan led Walter Mondale by 17 and Richard Nixon was ahead of George McGovern by 11.

Of course, some incumbents who went on to lose were doing better than Bush is today. The president’s father led Clinton by six points at this stage but was beaten anyway.

Thus, Kerry’s margin is 11 points better than was Bill Clinton’s at a similar point in time against Bush I. What, you haven’t seen that “Kerry stronger than Clinton” headline?

- rob 12:07 PM - [PermaLink] -

----

Sad Reading

Abu Ghraib and Beyond
The Bush administration says the U.S. atrocities at Saddam's old jail were the work of a few. But prisoner abuse is more widespread, and lots of people are passing the buck. A NEWSWEEK investigation

"This is not a few bad apples. This is a system failure, a massive failure," said Senate Armed Services Committee member Lindsay Graham, a conservative Republican who once helped to prosecute the impeached Bill Clinton. Graham told NEWSWEEK he believes that more allegations of murder and rape of detainees are likely to surface. Sen. John McCain, whose arms were broken by North Vietnamese torturers, could barely suppress his rage during last week's hearings. Questioning Rumsfeld, the Arizona Republican reduced the normally self-assured Pentagon chief to a helpless sputter when McCain repeatedly demanded, "Who was in charge of the interrogations?" Rumsfeld did not give him a straight answer.

The Pentagon's effort at containment was undermined not just by the accounts of Karpinski and some of her soldiers, but by the conclusions of Rumsfeld's own lead investigator, General Taguba. Last week Army Chief of Staff Peter Schoomaker acknowledged that Army regulations forbid military police from participating in "military-intelligence-supervised interrogation sessions." Deputy CENTCOM commander Lt. Gen. Lance Smith insisted that Miller's changes at Abu Ghraib in 2003 "didn't have anything to do with the methods of interrogating." But Taguba's report clearly outlines Miller's attempt to turn Abu Ghraib guards into "enablers" for interrogation. Taguba cites as evidence the testimony of Sgt. Javal Davis of the 372d and others, who related that military intel was telling them to "loosen this guy up for us," to "make sure this guy has a bad night" and to "give him the treatment." Taguba describes how military-intel officials even complimented one of the charged MPs, Spc. Charles Graner Jr., on his handling of prisoners with statements like, "Good job, they're breaking down real fast."

Just what was "the treatment" given to Iraqis? The answer to that question could ultimately decide Rumsfeld's fate. According to the Red Cross, interrogation methods at the U.S. military's "high-value detention" facility in Iraq, Camp Cropper, located near Baghdad International Airport, include "hooding a detainee in a bag, sometimes in conjunction with beatings, thus increasing anxiety as to when blows would come"; handcuffs so tight they broke the skin; beatings with rifles and pistols; threats against family members; and stripping detainees naked for several days in solitary confinement in a completely dark cell.

General Miller, in a press briefing, tried to show how he was now cleaning up interrogation procedures at Abu Ghraib. "We have approximately 50 approved interrogation techniques. They come from Army Field Manual 34-52," Miller said. Asked to explain what Miller meant, U.S. Army Intelligence Center spokesperson Tanja Linton said she would go away and inquire. She came back to report: "They have no idea what he is talking about." But a senior Defense Department official, speaking on background, confirms that there is a secret list of what he called "categories" of interrogation techniques—which, he says, can be used only with the case-by-case approval of Defense Secretary Rumsfeld.

But Bush won't fire Rummy, "Rummy's doing a superb job," says Bush. And Cave boy Cheney agrees, "The best Secretary of Defense evvvverrrr!" Bush then gave Cheney a high five and Cheney looked at some more photos of prisoners and yelled out "America Rulez! These are wicked!"

- rob 12:03 PM - [PermaLink] -

----

War Crimes

Lawmakers Say New Abuse Photos Even Worse

"I don't know how the hell these people got into our army," said Ben Nighthorse Campbell, R-Colo., one of several members of Congress who emerged grim-faced from lawmakers-only screenings in the Capitol.

Lawmakers said they saw disturbing images that included military dogs snarling at cowering prisoners, Iraqi women commanded to expose their breasts and photos of sex acts, including forced homosexual sex.

In addition, lawmakers said there were images of hooded Iraqi prisoners being forced to masturbate while cameras captured the scene.

Rep. Jane Harman, D-Calif., said she saw a clothed man hurling himself against a wall as though trying to knock himself unconscious.

Lieberman however thought he was watching a cheap cable movie and not evidence of systemic abuses by a defense department that was allowed to hurtle towards such demonstrations abusive power unchecked: "It just deepens the conclusion that this was a cellblock that had gone wild, had no standards," said Sen. Joseph Lieberman, D-Conn., although several lawmakers said the pictures reinforced their belief that officials further up the chain of command shared the cuplability.
...

Sen. John Warner, R-Va., said making the images public could "possibly endanger the men and women of the armed forces."

And that is the truth. These actions by these privates (and the Defense Department that nudged them along) not only have destroyed America's moral standing for decades to come, but have put our soldiers in even more danger than they were before.

Bush could lessen the risk by showing the world he takes this seriously by firing Rumsfeld, but the truth is that would only happen if he cared about America and the lives of American soldiers. He doesn't. If he fired Rumsfeld his core constituency of rabid idiots would see this as a weakness. Bush wants to get re-elected, that is and always is his goal. The lives of American servicemen mean nothing.

Rep. Wayne Gilchrist, R-Md., summed up his reaction to the pictures in four words: "Disgust, anger, rage, sadness."

Sen. Ben Nelson, D-Neb., said the images did not show acts of violence, but what appear to be "results of acts of violence."

Several other senators said they saw pictures of corpses, but it wasn't clear under what circumstances the Iraqis had died.

President Bush has apologized for the abuse, and Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld told Congress last week he accepted responsibility.

Those Senators are also responsible. They have a duty to make sure the money they give to the defense department is used correctly. They've been giving Bush a blank check, allowing him to really have unchecked power. Now what do we know about power?

- rob 11:55 AM - [PermaLink] -

----

Where Are They, Damn It!

Blogger Digby makes an interesting connection that the news media seems to have not noticed:

Here's a quote he takes from a recent NYTimes article:

He also said an order last November from the top American officer in Iraq effectively put the prison guards under the command of the intelligence unit there. But the civilian official, Stephen A. Cambone, the under secretary of defense for intelligence, contradicted the general. He said that the military police and the military intelligence unit at the prison needed to work closely to gain as much intelligence as possible from Iraqi prisoners to prevent attacks against American soldiers.

Digby must have remembered the name Cambone from somewhere because he pulls up this piece in a Time Magazine article from last July:

Meeting last month at a sweltering U.S. base outside Doha, Qatar, with his top Iraq commanders, President Bush skipped quickly past the niceties and went straight to his chief political obsession: Where are the weapons of mass destruction? Turning to his Baghdad proconsul, Paul Bremer, Bush asked, 'Are you in charge of finding WMD?' Bremer said no, he was not. Bush then put the same question to his military commander, General Tommy Franks. But Franks said it wasn't his job either. A little exasperated, Bush asked, So who is in charge of finding WMD? After aides conferred for a moment, someone volunteered the name of Stephen Cambone, a littleknown deputy to Donald Rumsfeld, back in Washington. Pause. 'Who?' Bush asked.

Is Cambone still in charge of that effort? Was an effort to save Bush's credibility, by finding the WMDs, the real reason why these prisoners were being interrogated?

Makes Bush's "where are the WMDs" joke even funnier (quicktime movie... worth the wait).

- rob 11:38 AM - [PermaLink] -

----

From the Dept. of Homeland Insecurity, Office of They Said It, Not Me


"I am not a crook"


"I am not a nut"


"We know who we are"

- Michael 10:48 AM - [PermaLink] -

----

I just heard, from CNN's Bill Schneider, perhaps the most ridiculous reason for keeping Rummy: To fire Rumsfeld would be a signal from the Bush administration that the war was going badly and, thus, they must keep him.

News flash to CNN: The war *is* going badly. As Harold Meyerson points out in his "Fantastical Occupation" WaPo opinion piece, contrary to administration claims prior to the conflict, things haven't quite turned out as planned. We weren't welcomed as liberators; the oil revenues have not come close to paying for the occupation; we've needed a continuous presence of 135,000-160,000 troops; the war has cost nearly 150-200 billion (a figure that Larry Lindsey was fired for expressing); 771 dead Americans; 10,000 plus dead Iraqis; no WMDs; no security; looted museums and world treasures; etc etc. By no standard that I can think of, is the war going *well.* But by all means, don't fire the guy who made those plans that are FUBAR right now. In fact, reward him! Keep him on the job! Give him a raise! He's doing a "superb job."

How do I get a job in the Bush administration? Apparently the worse you do, the better you are! Reminds me of the old war adage that the village was burned in order to save it. In fact, I think I'm going to start applying that logic in my own personal life:

*I'm sorry Visa, I didn't send my payment, but I'm not going to send you one now because to do so would be to admit that I didn't send my payment. Besides, if I sent my payment now, you'd look bad for letting me send it in late.

*Sorry boss, I didn't get that thing done. But don't blame me, I only had total responsibility for it. If you blame me, you'll only be putting yourself in the position of having to accept my failures and it will reflect badly on you for hiring me in the first place. In fact, why don't you give me a vacation while you're at it.

- B 4:14 PM - [PermaLink] -

----

The saviour of democracy is run by a unilateral bully

I am a huge admirer of the US. Freedom and democracy survived the 20th century only because of American actions and values. Without the US, Hitler or Stalin would have emerged as undisputed winners of the second world war. Thereafter, the US turned defeated enemies into allies and undertook the long - and ultimately successful - task of containing and defeating the Soviet empire.
...

Crafting a foreign policy for a new era is hard. The last time this had to be done was in the time of Franklin Delano Roosevelt and Harry Truman more than half a century ago. The institutions they established and the values they upheld were the foundation of the successful US foreign policy of the postwar era. Now, a task even more complex has fallen on this president. He is not up to the job. This is not a moral judgment, but a practical one. The world is too complex and dangerous for the pious simplicities and arrogant unilateralism of George W. Bush.

- rob 3:46 PM - [PermaLink] -

----

Fantastical Occupation

Back when he was running for president, in 2000, Sen. John McCain routinely referred to Bill Clinton's handling of world affairs as a "feckless photo-op foreign policy." Four years later, Clinton's foreign policy seems fairly filled with feck when contrasted with his successor's.

Has any official United States policy in recent memory been as feckless as the Bush administration's for postwar Iraq? Can we, for a moment, recall just some of the assumptions that the administration announced or embraced? That Americans would be welcomed as liberators? That we could secure the nation with a force of a little more than 100,000 troops? That Iraqi oil revenue would be such that the occupation would pay for itself? That, in accord with our assumptions on troop requirements and postwar financing, we didn't really need the kind of international cooperation that the nation had historically sought for this kind of venture? That, in accord with the same assumptions, there was no reason not to enact more massive tax cuts for the rich?

With the revelations that have emerged of the degradation and torture of prisoners at Abu Ghraib prison, it's become particularly clear that the administration gave no real thought to the challenges at the very heart of occupying another country. Occupations can be relatively benign, but only when the occupier is viewed by the occupied as a temporary, legitimate expedient, concerned with and able to enhance the occupied nation's reconstruction. If that perception begins to crumble, and if resistance erupts, occupations turn brutal, no matter how noble their goals may be.

- rob 3:36 PM - [PermaLink] -

----

From: CNN.com - Transcripts

A Republican Senator (GRAHAM -R - Georgia) says what I have tried to say in two of my posts today:

I think we're failing the country ourselves up here a bit. I think we're overly politicizing this. This should be what binds us, not what tears us apart. I think Republicans and Democrats have a different view of a lot of things, but it seems to me that investigating a prison abuse scandal, when you say you're the good guy, should pull you together, not tear you apart. And I would just hope my colleagues can understand that when you say you're the good guys, you've got to act as the good guys.

Again: when you say you're the good guys, you've got to act as the good guys.

See I don't always disagree with Republicans, I'm right here with you Senator Graham: I want America to be the good guys. What does your party's leader want America to be?

- rob 3:30 PM - [PermaLink] -

----

Really Bad News (if true)

Blair's perversity does him harm and Iraq no good

Lakhdar Brahimi, the UN special representative, was sent to Iraq to ease the passage to democracy much against his will. With his arm twisted by Kofi Annan and George Bush, he reluctantly agreed but warned of the risk of ensnaring the UN in this ill-fated US/UK adventure. As the murder of its previous envoy showed, the UN is unloved in a country that suffered 12 years of corruptly administered UN sanctions. Brahimi warned that the US would never hand over enough power to make a truly independent UN intervention possible. He was right. Now, according to Tony Blair's close advisers, he is about to walk away from Iraq, leaving Britain and America alone to stew after June 30.

In Bush's last dismaying press conference when asked who America was handing "sovereignty" over to on June 30th, Bush more less said "Brahimi is there to figure that out." Scary in and off itself, but more frightening when you realize that Brahimi doesn't know either, and what "sovereignty" itself has yet to be defined.

When and if this comes down look to the Bush defenders (soon Fox News will require all its employees to where undershirts with BD emblazoned on the chest) to say that this proves the UN is incompetent, may be, but what does that make the Bush administration who came to the UN on its knees saying "please please help us."?

- rob 3:14 PM - [PermaLink] -

----

Follow up to the post a few posts below about Bush defenders thinking so little of America that they compare our behavior with those of sadists and murderers.

Well its not just Bush defenders who don't think much of America, it looks like the Bush Administration doesn't think much of the United States of America either:

The Bush administration said those who beheaded Berg would be hunted down and brought to justice. The White House condemned the killing, which it said reinforced its insistence that US abuses of prisoners paled in comparison with the crimes of its enemies. From: Beheaded hostage 'had been warned to leave Iraq'. Thanks to Atrios for the link. (emphasis mine)

Does the White House, who believes they are responding to a divine call by liberating Iraq, think these representatives of America should measure their behavior to Saddam's sadists? I'm not saying our armed forces should be expected to act like monks (though I'm sure in the Catholic Church's history you can find instances where such abuses were the acts of monks - bad apples everywhere you know), but I do expect them to act like Americans: Defend themselves first, defend the helpless second, and rebuild a free Iraq; not sodomize prisoners (70 to 90% of whom where in there for no reason according to the International Red Cross) with light sticks, and follow orders by taking pictures of nude piles of humans while looking on with big grins.

What the hell kind of nation does Bush expect America to be? I expect it to be a great nation, a free nation, and an example to the world of what a free civilized nation can be. Bush thinks its cool for us to be a more or less free nation, run be a few corporations, with a private army and police force who lets its law enforcement officers strip and beat prisoners, but never lets a nude breast appear on television. Which nation do you want and expect America to be? I only hope we can decide come November.

- rob 2:57 PM - [PermaLink] -

----

Bush Family Values

Bush Will Attend 3 Commencements, His Twins' Not Among Them

WASHINGTON, May 10 President Bush will be going to three college commencements in coming weeks but not those of his twin daughters, Barbara and Jenna.

Mr. Bush and his wife, Laura, said they did not want to subject other families to the disruptions of a presidential visit when Barbara Bush graduates from Yale University on May 24 in New Haven and Jenna Bush graduates from the University of Texas on May 22 in Austin.

Mr. Bush turned down an invitation to speak at the Texas ceremony. But he will give a commencement address at the Air Force Academy in Colorado Springs, at Louisiana State University in Baton Rouge and at Concordia University in Mequon, Wis.

And earlier I had given bush the benefit of the doubt about not attending the graduation. But now we see its not that he doesn't want to disrupt a graduation ceremony, its just that he doesn't want to go to his daughters' graduations.

You see Connecticut and Texas are not battle ground states, why bother taking up time theretherere is an election to be won (and if not that, stolen), daughters be damned.

- rob 2:38 PM - [PermaLink] -

----

Why Do The Bush Defenders Think So Little of America?

 

We have Republican Senators, Fox News, Rush, and the right wing chorus everywhere downplaying the prison abuses that are occurring in multiple prisons in Afghanistan and Iraq.

 

Its not as bad as what Saddam would do!  Is that who they consider a worthy measure for America's behavior abroad.  Do they think so little of America?  I love American, and I believe America means something, it doesn't mean that we're better than Saddam, it means that on our worst day we make Saddam's best day look depraved.  America I believe in is just that good.

 

The American Right seems to think much less of America.  It compares our behavior to thugs, sadists, and murderers.  Yes we come up ahead but what a sad marker to judge with.  To them America is the mugger that just roughs you up and takes your money and that deserves praise because at least the mugger didn't rape you like some muggers do.  Insane! 

 

These are the same people who loudly praised this invasion as our international responsibility to peace and liberty and in couched terms even considered this mission divine, and now when their lunacy turns sour they want the world to be impressed that we torture less?

- rob 2:29 PM - [PermaLink] -

----

Subscribe to the TCS Feed

Having trouble with some of the poor English on this site?
Imagine what it looks like when translated by a machine:

Search TCS

Archive

Archive Index Page

What is this?

This is a "team" blog.  We are a bunch of Americans, whose rising distress in our leader's decisions brought us together to make this site.  As Bush said, he's a "uniter."  Many of us have never even met.
That's the internet for you.

This Century Sucks Store

Buy our cool stuff.
And tell everyone what you feel.  

We have a little Store you can visit.  

Our store's selection of items is constantly growing. Come see what we have.

 

We're also Amazon Associates, so if you want to buy something from Amazon, please search for it below, and we will get a few bucks from the sale.

Search Now:

Sites we often like:

Tin Foil Caps

The Free Speech Zone

The office of the independent blogger

Buzzflash

Tom The Dancing Bug

VerifiedVoting.org

Get Your War On

This Modern World

Eschaton / Atrios

Daily Kos

Contribute to America's Future

It is now more important then ever.

Donate to the Democractic Congressional Campaign Committee

Donate to the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee

Some More Site Mottos

"To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we are to stand by the president, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American people."
- Teddy Roosevelt



"Government has a final responsibility for the well-being of its citizenship. If private cooperative endeavor fails to provide work for willing hands and relief for the unfortunate, those suffering hardship from no fault of their own have a right to call upon the Government for aid; and a government worthy of its name must make fitting response."
 - Franklin Delano Roosevelt



"I am not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and Constitutions, but laws must and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change, with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors."
- Thomas Jefferson



"The means of defense against foreign danger historically have become the instruments of tyranny at home."

"All men having power ought to be distrusted to a certain degree."
- James Madison



"I believe in human dignity as the source of national purpose, in human liberty as the source of national action, in the human heart as the source of national compassion, and in the human mind as the source of our invention and our ideas. It is, I believe, the faith in our fellow citizens as individuals and as people that lies at the heart of the liberal faith. For liberalism is not so much a party creed or set of fixed platform promises as it is an attitude of mind and heart, a faith in man's ability through the experiences of his reason and judgment to increase for himself and his fellow men the amount of justice and freedom and brotherhood which all human life deserves."
- John F. Kennedy



"Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance, and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history. There is a tiny splinter group, of course, that believes you can do these things. Among them are [a] few other Texas oil millionaires, and an occasional politician or business man from other areas. Their number is negligible and they are stupid."
- Dwight D. Eisenhower

More Sites we often like:

more coming...

"There's nothing wrong with America that can't be fixed by what's right with America." - Bill Clinton.