The cronies and appointee’s are beginning to bail out before subpoena’s come in — it’s a pretty interesting scramble. The new Congress has held over 100 oversight hearings on Iraq, and plenty on other topics too … even if we’re fighting an uphill battle, there’s no denying the battle has begun!
The despicable Eichmann-of-the-endangered-species, Julie MacDonald of the Interior, has resigned — we’re keeping our eye on the inspector general of the U.S. Department of Commerce for signs of desk-packing — and the CEO of oil conglomerate BP is bowing out before the details of his private life become fodder for the rags. Meanwhile, we still have Miz Julia’s phone records awaiting scrutiny [don't forget 20/20 Friday night] and the DoJ continues to sizzle in deep fat.
There’s a list of 33 such scandal-tainted Bushies in this post, which doesn’t include those from this year — and doesn’t include names like Lay, Skilling, Abramoff … those who had a criminal amount of influence, but no formal government tie. Nor does it include the long list of congressional bail-outs. Still — it’s impressive. Pass it around to any Pubs you know who are insisting that all this corruption stuff is Liberal hysteria.
Heckuva Job, Bushies — you got farther down the line in corrupt ideological take-over than any of us believed possible!
Not limited to just our home-front, this kind of purge is happening everywhere. I’ve included an article, last, on aggressive calls for Israel’s Olmert to step down — and Tony Blair is packing, it’s suggested, but he keeps putting off that final goodbye … to the disgust of most British citizens.
We’ve got ‘em on the run, now — and it’s not pretty. I guess we’ve had enough of the Enron Years, huh?
Jude
Embattled Interior Official Julie MacDonald Resigns In Wake of Inspector General Report
The Center for Biological Diversity
May 02, 2007
WASHINGTON, D.C. — According to the Endangered Species and Wetlands Report, a high-level Bush administration appointee has resigned in the aftermath of a devastating Inspector General investigation, just days before a House congressional oversight committee will hold a public hearing on her violations of the Endangered Species Act, censorship of science, and brutalizing of U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service staff.
Julie MacDonald tendered her resignation on April 30, 2007. She was the Department of Interior’s Assistant Secretary of Fish, Wildlife and Parks, a position that oversees the entire U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service endangered species program. As revealed in numerous media exposés and a recent Department of Interior Inspector General investigation, MacDonald used her position to aggressively squelch protection of endangered species. She rewrote scientific reports, browbeat U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service employees, and colluded with industry lawyers to generate lawsuits against the Fish and Wildlife Service.
MacDonald’s specialty was blocking agency efforts to place imperiled species on the endangered species list, stripping tens of millions of acres from agency proposals to designated “critical habitat” areas and working with industry groups to remove species from the endangered list and thus from federal protection.
“Julie MacDonald’s reign of terror over the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is finally over,” said Kieran Suckling, policy director with the Center for Biological Diversity. “Endangered species and scientists everywhere are breathing a sigh of relief. But MacDonald was the administration’s attack dog, not its general. The contempt for science and law that she came to symbolize goes much deeper than a single Department of Interior employee.”
MacDonald’s recently hired counterpart, Todd Willens, is equally dedicated to undermining endangered species conservation. Willens spearheaded Richard Pombo’s (R-CA) anti-endangered species agenda as lead staffer of the House Resources Committee, then was appointed Deputy Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks on October 19, 2006. He has since been directly involved in developing sweeping anti-endangered species regulations and efforts to remove the Florida manatee and West Virginia northern flying squirrel from the endangered species list.
MacDonald’s firing comes days before a May 9th congressional oversight hearing into the Bush administration’s rampant violations of the Endangered Species Act and censorship of endangered species science. Senator Ron Wyden (D-OR) recently threatened to hold up confirmation of another Interior official until the Department addressed MacDonald’s ethical violations.
The Bush administration has listed fewer species under the Endangered Species Act than any other administration since the law was enacted in 1973, to date only listing 57 species compared to 512 under the Clinton administration and 234 under the first Bush administration. The Bush government has listed so few species in part because it has been denying species protection at record rates - in many cases with the direct involvement of MacDonald.
Of all the endangered species listing decisions made under the Bush administration, 52 percent denied protection as compared to only 13 percent during the last six years of the Clinton Administration. Meanwhile, 279 species languish on the candidate list without protection.
The Center for Biological Diversity is a nonprofit conservation organization with more than 35,000 members dedicated to the protection of endangered species and wilderness.
Anti-Fraud Official Faces Fraud Probe
Justin Rood and Anna Schecter, ABC
May 01, 2007
A senior government official is under investigation by a congressional committee for allegations he engaged in “widespread fraud, waste, and abuse” -– the same misbehavior he is supposed to ferret out.
Johnnie Frazier, the inspector general of the U.S. Department of Commerce, is said to have rigged contract bids for cronies, fraudulently charged the government for improper travel, wasted tens of thousands of dollars on an erstwhile office remodeling and may have destroyed files that were proof of his wrongdoing, according to accounts given to lawmakers by current and former employees.
As his department’s senior investigator, Frazier is supposed to “detect and prevent waste, fraud, abuse, and mismanagement” at Commerce, according to his office’s Web site.
In an April 27 letter to Frazier announcing an investigation into his office, House Energy and Commerce Chairman John. D. Dingell, D-Mich.; ranking member Joe Barton, R-Texas; subcommittee Chairman Bart Stupak, D-Mich.; and ranking subcommittee member Ed Whitfield, R-Ky., detailed a wide range of allegations they had received from whistle-blowers in his department.
The lawmakers requested Frazier provide them with documentation related to the allegations.
A woman who did not identify herself answered the phone Tuesday evening at a number listed as belonging to Frazier. When ABC News explained the purpose of the call, the woman responded, “He’s not going to want to talk about that.” Before hanging up, she asked ABC News not to call back.
According to the congressmen, Frazier is alleged to have repeatedly charged the government for excessive and unnecessary travel unrelated to government duties, allegedly including trips he told people were really to find post-governmental employment.
Whistle-blowers said that Frazier gave a retirement bonus as a wedding gift to a former employee who was marrying another member of Frazier’s own management team, the lawmakers wrote.
The congressmen also said Frazier allegedly ordered another senior official to prepare fraudulent application material on behalf of a “pre-selected candidate” to justify the hire. In another instance, they say Frazier allegedly told a subordinate to prepare job descriptions for senior-level positions to ensure that only certain of his friends would qualify.
Frazier also allegedly improperly arranged for a no-bid contract for $150,000 to go to a company that was connected to a retiring member of his staff.
The lawmakers relayed allegations that Frazier had the walls in his office torn down to create an “open floor plan” and ordered modular cubicle furniture for the space. But when his special assistant “complained about having to work in a cubicle,” he allegedly ordered the walls rebuilt.
The combined cost for converting back to the original work space was alleged to be a high as $100,000, according to whistle-blowers.
The lawmakers said they were particularly troubled that Frazier, a seasoned career investigator, is alleged to have destroyed, altered and tampered with evidence during the course of an official investigation into some of the complaints.
“It is alleged that one or more of your staff assisted you in deleting e-mail messages from your computer after an [Office of Special Counsel] investigation [into allegations of retaliatory behavior] had already begun,” the men wrote.
Current and former employees also told the committee members that individuals were seen in Frazier’s office possibly deleting documents, in particular relating to his travel, according to the letter.
In the past, some Democrats have considered Frazier, who served under President Bill Clinton, to be one of President Bush’s better choices for an agency inspector general post. While criticizing the White House for appointing partisans to such investigative offices, Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif., cited Frazier as an exception.
“Johnnie Frazier worked for 21 years at the Department of Commerce IG office before President Clinton appointed him Inspector General there,” Waxman noted approvingly in a 2005 report.
A committee spokeswoman told ABC News Tuesday evening that they had not yet received a response from Frazier.
George Bush’s Angels: How the Mighty Are Falling
Shaun Mullen, The Moderate Voice
Yet another Bush administration official has bailed, bringing to 33 the extraordinary number of people who have been convicted, copped pleas, indicted or otherwise brought down by scandal.
No. 33 is Julie MacDonald, a deputy assistant Interior Department secretary for fish, wildlife and parks, who has submitted her resignation after being accused of pressuring government scientists to make their research fit her policy goals.
Her resignation came a week before a House congressional oversight committee was to hold a hearing on accusations that she violated the Endangered Species Act, censored science and mistreated staff of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
MacDonald was recently rebuked by the Interior Department’s inspector general, who told Congress in a report last month that she broke federal rules and should face punishment for leaking information about endangered species to private groups.
Just last week, Deputy Secretary of State Randall L. Tobias resigned after confirming that he was a customer of a Washington, D.C., escort service whose owner has been charged with running a prostitution operation, and Robert E. Coughlin II, who was deputy chief of staff of the embattled Justice Department’s criminal division, resigned because of his ties to convicted super lobbyist Jack Abramoff.
Next angel to fall: Johnnie Frazier, inspector general of the Commerce Department. More here.
[See below] … a list of the fallen angels. It does not include the latest trio.
Our Great List of Scandalized Administration Officials
Justin Rood, TPM Muckraker
December 4, 2006
A number of readers have sent in tips to help the folks at Powerline, who recently admitted to having trouble remembering administration officials (beyond Scooter Libby) who had been accused of corruption or resigned in the face of scandal.
How could you foresake us! cry our old pals Claude Allen, David Safavian, Brian Doyle. Who could forget former FDA commissioner, Lester Crawford? After the jump, you’ll find our partial (but fast-growing) list. If we’re missing a name, please send it along!
Indicted / Convicted/ Pled Guilty
* Scooter Libby - Vice President Dick Cheney’s chief of staff - resigned after being indicted for Obstruction of Justice, Perjury, and Making False Statements in connection with the investigation stemming from the leak of a CIA operative’s identity.
* Lester Crawford - Commissioner, FDA - resigned after only two months on the job. Pled guilty to conflict of interest and making false statements.
* Brian Doyle - Deputy Press Secretary, DHS - Resigned in wake of child sex scandal. Pled no contest to 32 criminal counts.
* Claude Allen - Assistant to the President for Domestic Policy- resigned, pled guilty to shoplifting from Target stores.
* David Safavian - former head of the Office of Federal Procurement Policy at the Office of Management and Budget - convicted of lying to ethics officials and Senate investigators about his ties to lobbyist Jack Abramoff.
* Larry Franklin - intelligence officer, Defense - resigned, pled guilty to passing secrets to Israel.
* Roger Stillwell - desk officer, Interior Department - pled guilty to failing to report Redskins tickets and free dinners from Jack Abramoff.
* Frank Figueroa - senior DHS official, former head of anti-sex-crime Operation Predator - pled no contest to exposing himself to 16-year-old girl in Florida mall. Girl says he fondled himself for ten minutes. Figueroa forfeited his badge, gun, and access to databases; employment status pending internal DHS review.
* Darleen Druyun - senior contracting official, U.S. Air Force - pled guilty and sentenced to nine months in prison for her role in the Boeing tanker lease scandal.
* John Korsmo - chairman, Federal Housing Finance Board - pled guilty last year to lying to the Senate and an inspector general. He swore he had no idea how a list of presidents for FHFB-regulated banks were invited to a fundraiser for his friend’s congressional campaign. On the invites, Korsmo was listed as the “Special Guest.” Got 18 months of probation.
* P. Trey Sunderland III - chief, Geriatric Psychiatry, Nat’l Institute of Mental Health - admitted to a criminal conflict of interest charge for failing to report $300,000 received from Pfizer, Inc. *As of 12/11/06, still employed by NIMH.
Resigned Due to/Pending/After Investigation
* Carl Truscott - Director, Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives Bureau - resigned. A report by the Justice Department’s Inspector General found that Truscott wasted tens of thousands of dollars on luxuries, wasted millions on whimsical management decisions and violated ethics rules by ordering employees to help his nephew with a high school video project.
* Joseph Schmitz - Inspector General, Defense - Resigned amid charges he personally intervened to protect top political appointees.
* Steven Griles - Deputy Secretary at the Interior Department - resigned, currently under investigation by the Justice Department for his ties to Jack Abramoff.
* Susan Ralston - assistant, White House - resigned amidst revelations that she had accepted thousands of dollars in gifts from Abramoff without compensating him, counter to White House ethics rules.
* Dusty Foggo - Executive Director, CIA - stepped down following accusations of corruption in connection to the Duke Cunningham scandal. Under investigation.
* Janet Rehnquist - Inspector General, Department of Health and Human Services - resigned in the face of allegations she blocked a politically dangerous probe on behalf of the Bush family.
* Ken Tomlinson, Board Chairman, Corporation for Public Broadcasting; member, Broadcasting Board of Governors - resigned at the release of an inspector general report concluding he had broken laws in spending CPB money to hire politically connected consultants to search for “bias” without consulting the board. At BBG, a separate investigation found he was running a “horse racing operation” out of his office, and continuing to hire politically-wired individuals to do “consulting” work for him. He’s still there.
* George Deutsch - press aide, NASA - resigned amid allegations he prevented the agency’s top climate scientist from speaking publicly about global warming.
* Richard Perle - Chairman, Defense Policy Board - resigned from Pentagon advisory panel amid conflict-of-interest charges.
* James Roche - secretary, U.S. Air Force - resigned in the wake of the Boeing tanker lease scandal, after it was revealed he had rather crudely pushed for Boeing to win a $23 billion contract.
* Marvin Sambur - top contracting executive, U.S. Air Force - Druyun’s boss, Sambur resigned in the wake of the scandal. Investigations cleared him of wrongdoing.
* Philip Cooney - chief of staff, White House Council on Environmental Quality - a former oil industry lawyer with no scientific expertise, Cooney resigned after it was revealed he had watered down reports on global warming.
* Thomas Scully - Administrator, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services - shortly after Scully resigned in 2003, an investigation by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Office of the Inspector General found that Scully had pressured the agency’s actuary to underestimate the full cost of the Medicare reform bill by approximately $100 billion until after Congress passed the bill into law. Scully was also charged wtih conflict of interest allegations by the U.S. attorney’s office for billing CMS for expenses incurred during a job search while he still headed the agency. He settled those charges by paying $9,782.
* Michelle Larson Korsmo - deputy chief of staff, Department of Labor - Helped her husband (see Frank Korsmo, above) with his donor scam. Quietly left her Labor plum job in February 2004, about two weeks before news broke that she and her husband were the targets of a criminal probe.
* David Smith - Deputy Assistant Secretary for Fish, Wildlife, and Parks, Interior Department - resigned after shooting a buffalo and accepting its remains as an illegal gratuity. He eventually paid over $3,000 for the dead buffalo, but only after the internal inquiry had commenced.
* Sean Tunis - Chief Medical Officer, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) - Last summer, the State of Maryland suspended his medical license because he faked documentation relating to his medical education. Despite that, he stayed on board for several months at CMS, albeit on administrative leave. He has since been replaced, although it’s not clear when because CMS did not announce the switch and has not responded to our calls.
Nomination Failed Due to Scandal
* Bernard Kerik - nominated, Secretary, Department of Homeland Security - withdrew his nomination amidst a host of corruption allegations. Eventually pled guilty to a misdemeanor relating to having accepted improper gifts totaling tens of thousands of dollars while he was a New York City official in the late 1990’s.
* Timothy Flanigan - nominated, Deputy Attorney General - withdrew his nomination amidst revelations that he’d worked closely with lobbyist Jack Abramoff when he was General Counsel for Corporate and International Law at Tyco, which was a client of Abramoff’s.
* Linda Chavez - nominated, Secretary of Labor - withdrew her nomination amidst revelations that an illegal immigrant lived in her home and worked for her.
BP CEO John Browne Resigns Amid Furor
D’ARCY DORAN, AP
May 1, 2007
LONDON — BP PLC’s Chief Executive John Browne resigned Tuesday, hours after a judge allowed a newspaper to publish allegations from a former boyfriend that the executive misused company resources.
Browne, who had already moved up his departure by more than a year after a deadly refinery blast in Texas and a giant oil spill in Alaska, denied any improper conduct relating to BP. But he acknowledged that he had lied to a judge about how he met his former partner, with whom he had a four-year relationship.
The Mail on Sunday, the newspaper that had sought to publish the claims, immediately called for Browne to be prosecuted for perjury.
Browne said he regretted the lie, saying he was in shock at his private life being exposed, and was stepping down voluntarily “to avoid unnecessary embarrassment and distraction to the company.”
“For the past 41 years of my career at BP I have kept my private life separate from my business life,” he said.
Browne’s designated successor, exploration and production head Tony Hayward, will take over as CEO immediately, the company said. He will have to repair BP’s tarnished reputation after the series of high-profile operational and regulatory mishaps.
BP said Browne’s decision meant he would lose a bonus of up to 1.3 times his annual salary, worth more than 3.5 million pounds ($6.9 million). He would also forgo inclusion in a share plan with a potential value of 12 million pounds ($23.9 million).
Browne, 59, had been fighting since January to keep the Mail on Sunday from publishing details from the interview with Jeff Chevalier. He acknowledged the relationship in the statement Tuesday and apologized for lying to the judge.
“My initial witness statements … contained an untruthful account about how I first met Jeff,” he said. “This account, prompted by my embarrassment and shock at the revelations, is a matter of deep regret.”
The Mail on Sunday said it would provide evidence of Browne’s deception to the attorney general’s office.
“That Lord Browne should have felt free to lie deliberately and repeatedly raises deeply worrying questions about the system of secret court hearing which is increasingly being used by the rich and powerful to prevent the public knowing the truth about their activities,” the newspaper said in a statement.
Browne was accused of using BP computers and staff to help Chevalier, of using support staff to set up and then wind down a company Browne created for him to run, and sending a senior BP employee on a personal errand to deliver cash to him.
Browne rejected the allegations, calling them “full of misleading and erroneous claims. I deny categorically any allegations of improper conduct relating to BP.”
BP said an internal investigation determined that those allegations were unfounded.
“The board of BP has accepted John’s resignation with the deepest regret,” Chairman Peter Sutherland said. He called it “a tragedy that he should be compelled by his sense of honor to resign in these painful circumstances.”
Phil Flynn, an analyst at Alaron Trading Corp. in Chicago, said he thought the allegations against Browne were serious enough that, if proved true, the CEO would have been forced to resign even if BP had not faced other problems.
“If that’s proven, then that in and of itself might be enough,” Flynn said. “But, obviously, John Browne’s reputation was already tainted.”
Shares in BP edged lower after the announcement, closing down 0.4 percent to 563 pence ($11.24) on the London Stock Exchange.
Browne’s decision will allow Hayward to start with a clean slate, analyst Jason Kenney of ING Group told Dow Jones Newswires. He said the news shouldn’t affect the company’s share performance, since Hayward already was selected to become the next CEO and the company’s future strategy had been laid out earlier this year.
After more than a decade at the helm of BP, Browne _ a close associate of Prime Minister Tony Blair _ had announced in January that he would resign at the end of July, bringing his expected departure forward by more than a year.
Then his annual performance bonus for last year was cut almost in half as the oil spill in Alaska and the effects of the refinery explosion in Texas overshadowed record profits for the oil company.
Last month, BP reported a 17 percent drop in first-quarter earnings on lower oil prices and declining production.
Browne joined the company in 1966 as an apprentice and worked his way up to the top job in 1995. He oversaw BP’s expansion into the United States, including the 1998 merger with Amoco and the subsequent acquisitions of Arco and Castrol.
Before the scandals, Browne was known as the man who turned BP around, Flynn said.
“This guy was a superstar in the oil industry,” he said.
But Browne’s attempts to fashion BP as an environmentally friendly oil company _ he was the first major oil company CEO to acknowledge global warming and masterminded BP’s logo change from a shield to a flowerlike sunburst design with the slogan “Beyond Petroleum” _ were undermined by the company’s recent U.S. troubles.
BP was forced to temporarily close some of its operations at the Prudhoe Bay oil field in Alaska because of a major pipeline spill and delayed the opening of its key Thunder Horse platform in the Gulf of Mexico. The 2005 explosion at its Texas refinery that killed 15 workers has so far cost the company around $2 billion in compensation payouts, repairs and lost profits.
Browne told shareholders at the annual meeting last month that the day of the accident was the “saddest and darkest” of his career. Sutherland said the company was making “good progress” on safety issues.
BP is set to appoint an independent safety expert this month.
AP Business Writer John Wilen contributed to this story from New York.
Israeli FM seeks Olmert’s resignation
ARON HELLER, AP
5/2/07
JERUSALEM - Israel’s popular foreign minister on Wednesday called on Prime Minister Ehud Olmert to step down and said she would seek to replace him as allies began to desert the embattled premier after a harsh report criticizing his handling of last year’s war in Lebanon.
But Olmert told members of his ruling Kadima Party that he plans to stay on to shepherd through the report’s recommendations.
“I intend to implement the recommendations of the report down to the last detail,” spokesman Jacob Galanti quoted him as saying Wednesday.
Olmert convened the emergency meeting of Kadima officials after Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni told him in a private meeting that she thought he should step down. And Avigdor Yitzhaki, chairman of the parliamentary coalition, quit to express dissatisfaction with Olmert, Galanti said.
“I told him that resignation would be the right thing for him to do,” said Livni, who is best placed to succeed Olmert as leader of the Kadima Party — and possibly as prime minister.
Livni said she would remain in government “to ensure that improvements are carried out.” Livni, Olmert’s top rival in the party, said she believed Kadima could replace Olmert without holding new elections.
Under Israel’s parliamentary system, Kadima could change leaders without losing power. Livni said when Kadima holds its party primary, she would run for the leadership. No primary date has been set.
“It’s not a personal matter between me and the prime minister — this issue is more important than both of us,” Livni said.
The 34-day war against Hezbollah guerrillas has been widely perceived as a failure. Monday’s report said Olmert bore ultimate responsibility, accusing him of poor judgment, hasty decision-making and lack of vision. The harsh language has fueled growing calls for Olmert’s resignation from the public, his party and members of his coalition, in addition to political rivals.
In Lebanon, the militant Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah said Wednesday he “respects” his enemy’s verdict of failure in last summer’s war with his guerrillas.
“I will not gloat,” the Shiite Muslim cleric told an audience in a south Beirut neighborhood complex that was rebuilt after being leveled by Israeli warplanes during the summer fighting. “When the enemy entity acts honestly and sincerely, you cannot but respect it.”
The militant Hezbollah leader also said the Israeli commission reviewing the Lebanon war had vindicated his claim that Israel had been defeated.
“The first important outcome of this commission is that it has finally and officially decided the issue of victory and defeat … This commission spoke about a very big defeat,” Nasrallah said.
Confidants of Defense Minister Amir Peretz, whose performance was also criticized in the report, said he was considering resigning. They spoke on condition of anonymity because no decision has been made, and there was no confirmation from his spokesmen.
Support for Peretz has dropped to the point that four people will be challenging his leadership of the Labor Party in late May. Peretz’s expected ouster could be followed by a Labor pullout from the current coalition government, something that could cause the government to fall.
Livni could encounter difficulty in keeping the current coalition together. The ultra-Orthodox Shas party would have trouble serving under a woman, while the nationalist Yisrael Beiteinu party may be wary of cooperating with Livni, who is more dovish than Olmert.
A defiant Olmert opened a special Cabinet session by hinting that reports of his political demise were premature: “To those who are eager to take advantage of this report to reap certain political advantages, I suggest ’slow down.’”
Two new polls published in Israeli newspapers Wednesday said some two-thirds of Israelis want Olmert to resign immediately. The surveys indicated that the hawkish former prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu of the opposition Likud Party, would likely win handily if new elections were held.
Since the report was issued, Olmert has struggled to hold his coalition together. A minister from the Labor Party, Olmert’s main coalition partner, has also quit, and there have been increasing signs of eroding support within Kadima.
At the 3 1/2-hour Cabinet session, ministers agreed to carry out the war report’s recommendations for improved decision-making and crisis management, and to set up a committee to oversee the implementation, Cabinet Secretary Israel Maimon said.
Olmert told ministers that his government would best remedy the mistakes it made.
“We could make life easy and say ‘Thank you, I was proud to serve the State of Israel,’ and go,” Maimon quoted him as saying. “But I know from past experience with such reports that no other government will implement this (report), only this government.”
Demands that Olmert quit began shortly after the costly and inconclusive war, in which almost 4,000 Hezbollah rockets landed in Israel and 158 Israelis were killed. More than 1,000 Lebanese civilians and combatants also died, according to Lebanese officials.
The war broke out July 12 after Hezbollah guerrillas crossed into Israel, killed three soldiers and captured two others. Olmert’s public support, high in the early days of the war, nose-dived after the fighting ended without Israel’s achieving the two goals he declared — crushing Hezbollah and recovering the captured soldiers.
“So keep fightin’ for freedom and justice, beloveds, but don’t you forget to have fun doin’ it. Lord, let your laughter ring forth. Be outrageous, ridicule the fraidy-cats, rejoice in all the oddities that freedom can produce. And when you get through kickin’ ass and celebratin’ the sheer joy of a good fight, be sure to tell those who come after how much fun it was.”
~ Molly Ivins, 1944 - 2007
In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. interracial porn ameteurporn ameteur moviesporn video ameteurfree porn ametuarpics teen ametue pornporn grannie ametuerametuer porn clipsforums porn ametuer Map
May 2nd, 2007
President George “Stonewall” Bush gave us his veto yesterday — a smackdown of defiance and a kiss of death to his party. He’ll by-god keep Fredo and Wolfy cozy with him in his bubble, and all those “kids” will remain in harms way, thank you — nobody is going to tell him what to do. He’s the Decider.
I had to laugh this weekend when Condi Rice made this statement on Face the Nation:
“To begin now to tie our own hands — and to say ‘We must do this if they don’t do that’ — doesn’t allow us the flexibility and creativity that we need to move this forward.”
Really! WHAT flexibility and creativity was that? What’s been “new” in the last four-plus years? And we only “begin” to tie their hands now because the Congress and much of the public has turned Blue in self-defense, while the Red is oozing blood to a near-pink, thanks to Dubby’s leadership.
It’s really quite a moment, dearhearts — quite a display of temperament and hubris; and while it appears that justice and freedom are thwarted, I think it will be remembered as the day when George Walker Bush passed the point of no return with the public, the world and the sane, taking his failed party with him. Don’t miss the last piece in this collection — we’ve read similar before, but this time we’ve moved ahead to that point where it isn’t speculation anymore … it’s reality.
Here’s response from Senator Byrd, Nancy Pelosi, Will Pitt, Doug Thompson — we hear what some of the Generals have to say, as well. Toward the end, you’ll find insider reports that give us hints about how the Republicans are viewing their Frankenstein … arguably created by Barbara Bush and Pappy, but the party shills were the one’s who put the top hat on him and handed him the cane, rehearsed him in the opening bars of Puttin’ on the Ritz. When the townspeople rush up the Hill with pitchforks, they’ll have nobody to thank but themselves.
Jude
Sealing His Eyes And Ears
Robert C. Byrd, senior senator from West Virginia
TomPaine
May 02, 2007
Four years ago, President Bush landed on the deck of the USS Abraham Lincoln to declare, “Mission Accomplished.” For thousands of our soldiers and their families, and likely for the Iraqi people, it feels like a lifetime has passed. How wrong the president was then and how wrong he continues to be today.
By vetoing the supplemental legislation, the president has chosen to hold hostage $100 billion for our troops to a failed policy. He is once again demonstrating his detachment from the realities on the ground in Iraq, and his indifference to the will of the American people at home. The president’s veto ensures that hundreds, maybe thousands more will die in Iraq without bringing that country any closer to peace.
Before the war began, I urged the president to think through the consequences. I was very concerned about the repercussions that would follow this country’s certain military victory.
Tragically, the repercussions I feared all have come to pass.
No matter how hard the president hopes it will happen, sectarian violence will not be quelled with U.S. forces occupying the Iraqi nation. Cross your fingers. Rub your lucky rabbit’s foot. Nail a horse shoe over the door to the Oval Office. Hoping for luck will not change the deadly dynamic in Iraq. Peace demands an Iraqi-led diplomatic, economic and security effort, the kind of which, to date, the Iraqi government has been unable or unwilling to undertake. Our legislation could have motivated the Iraqi people to take more responsibility by instituting benchmarks and rewards for positive outcomes. Instead, the president has again chosen to have our troops go it alone in a centuries old sectarian war with no end in sight.
When he took office more than six years ago, George W. Bush issued a call for renewed responsibility in government. What is responsible about clinging to this failing course in Iraq? What is responsible about the president continuing to foster and manipulate the fears of the American people? Today, faced with the tragic consequences of his misjudgments in Iraq, the Bush administration is paralyzed, unwilling to even acknowledge, much less remedy, its catastrophic blunders.
We have learned a lot about President Bush since this war began. We know that he cannot admit mistakes. Although the Bush administration has misled the American people and caused a disaster in Iraq, the White House has chosen to continue living in the fantasy world of a public relations campaign designed to obscure reality.
I am sorry that this day has come to pass. I have seen clashes between the legislative and executive branches. I have seen presidents make mistakes in the past. Everyone makes mistakes. I have made them. Every senator has made them. But I have never seen such arrogance by a White House that seals its eyes and ears and blindly sends our brave troops to their doom.
The Congress will get to work on a new version of the supplemental appropriations conference report. We will not delay. But we also will not stop in our efforts to stand for what is right and to craft policies that reflect the true strength of America—humility, modesty, honesty. We will continue to press for a strong, intelligent foreign policy that does not rely on military might alone. And we will not relent in our efforts to bring secure peace for Iraq and to bring our troops home from war. ++
Congress Will Not Give the President a Blank Check
Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi | Statement
Truthout
Tuesday 01 May 2007
Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, and Democratic leaders responded to President Bush’s veto of the Iraq Supplemental bill today. Below are her remarks:
“Thank you, Mr. Leader.
“Earlier today, the Leader and I sent to the President a bill that made a strong commitment to support our men and women in uniform, and a strong commitment to honor our promises to our veterans. This was a bill that was worthy of the sacrifice of our men and women in uniform.
“It was a bill that honored and respected the wishes of the American people to have benchmarks, to have guidelines, to have standards for what is happening in Iraq. Again, out of respect for the wishes of the American people.
“We had hoped the President would have treated it with the respect that bipartisan legislation supported overwhelmingly by the American people deserved. Instead, the President vetoed the bill outright and, frankly, misrepresented what this legislation does.
“This bill supports the troops. In fact, it gives the President more than he asked for for our troops; they deserve it. They have done their duties excellently; they have done everything that has been asked of them, all of this without, in some cases, the training, the equipment, and a plan for success for them.
“The President wants a blank check. The Congress is not going to give it to him.
“The President said, in his comments, that he did not believe in timelines and he spoke out very forcefully against them. Yet, in 1999, on June 5, then Governor Bush said about President Clinton, ‘I think it’s also important for the President to lay out a timetable as to how long they will be involved and when they will be withdrawn.’
“Despite his past statements, President Bush refuses to apply the same standards to his own activities. Standards, that’s the issue.
“If the President thinks that what is happening on the ground in Iraq now is progress, as he said in his comments tonight, it is clear to see why we have a disagreement on policy with him.
“I agree with Leader Reid, we look forward to working with the President to find common ground. But there is great distance between us right now.”
++
General Eaton’s Letter to President Bush on Veto
Jim Starowicz, Vote Vets
Tuesday, 1 May 2007
May 1, 2007
President George W. Bush
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue
Washington, DC 20500
Dear Mr. President,
Today, in your veto message regarding the bipartisan legislation just passed on Operation Iraqi Freedom, you asserted that you so decided because you listen to your commanders on the ground.
Respectfully, as your former commander on the ground, your administration did not listen to our best advice. In fact, a number of my fellow Generals were forced out of their jobs, because they did not tell you what you wanted to hear — most notably General Eric Shinseki, whose foresight regarding troop levels was advice you rejected, at our troops’ peril.
The legislation you vetoed today represented a course of action that is long overdue. This war can no longer be won by the military alone. We must bring to bear the entire array of national power - military, diplomatic and economic. The situation demands a surge in diplomacy, and pressure on the Iraqi government to fix its internal affairs. Further, the Army and Marine Corps are on the verge of breaking - or have been broken already - by the length and intensity of this war. This tempo is not sustainable - and you have failed to grow the ground forces to meet national security needs. We must begin the process of bringing troops home, and repairing and growing our military, if we are ever to have a combat-ready force for the long war on terror ahead of us.
The bill you rejected today sets benchmarks for success that the Iraqis would have to meet, and puts us on a course to redeploy our troops. It stresses the need for sending troops into battle only when they are rested, trained and equipped. In my view, and in the view of many others in the military that I know, that is the best course of action for our security.
As someone who served this nation for decades, I have the utmost respect for the office you hold. However, as a man of conscience, I could not sit idly by as you told the American people today that your veto was based on the recommendations of military men. Your administration ignored the advice of our military’s finest minds before, and I see no evidence that you are listening to them now.
I urge you to reconsider your position, and work with Congress to pass a bill that achieves the goals laid out above.
Respectfully,
Major General Paul D. Eaton, USA, Retired
++
A Veto Inked in Blood
William Rivers Pitt, t r u t h o u t | Columnist
Wednesday 02 May 2007
There are some similarities, of course. Death is terrible.
~ George W. Bush on comparisons between Iraq and Vietnam, April 19, 2007
Four years after a humiliating strut across the flight deck of the USS Abraham Lincoln, four years after declaring major combat operations in Iraq ended and the mission accomplished, four years and more than three thousand dead American soldiers later, four long years to the day, George W. Bush delivered a veto that only ensures more wretched and bloody carnage.
“Bush used his veto pen for only the second time Tuesday,” reported NBC News, “after Congress sent him a war spending bill that would impose timelines to withdraw US troops from Iraq, which he called a ‘prescription for chaos.’ The bill is unacceptable because it ’substitutes the opinions of politicians for the judgments of our military commanders,’ the president said in a nationally televised address to explain why he was vetoing a bill that would also provide more than $100 billion in emergency spending for the war.”
Take a moment to absorb the twin-bill nonsense within that explanation.
The now-vetoed, multi-billion-dollar Iraq spending bill, which contained withdrawal timelines demanded by Congressional Democrats, “substitutes the opinions of politicians for the judgments of our military commanders,” according to Bush. Many of us must have missed the memo explaining how Bush, Cheney, and the rest of this administration aren’t politicians anymore. We also missed the memo explaining how it was the “judgments of our military commanders” that sunk us into this mess to begin with.
Speaking of military judgments, here are two worth considering; both came after Bush deployed the veto pen on Tuesday.
Major General John Batiste, USA, Ret.: “The President vetoed our troops and the American people. His stubborn commitment to a failed strategy in Iraq is incomprehensible. He committed our great military to a failed strategy in violation of basic principles of war. His failure to mobilize the nation to defeat worldwide Islamic extremism is tragic. We deserve more from our commander-in-chief and his administration.”
Major General Paul Eaton, USA, Ret: “This administration and the previously Republican-controlled legislature have been the most caustic agents against America’s Armed Forces in memory. Less than a year ago, the Republicans imposed great hardship on the Army and Marine Corps by their failure to pass a necessary funding language. This time, the president of the United States is holding our soldiers hostage to his ego. More than ever apparent, only the Army and the Marine Corps are at war - alone, without their president’s support.”
When a Major General of the United States Army publicly declares that “the president of the United States is holding our soldiers hostage to his ego,” matters have gone badly awry.
Speaking of badly awry, we also have this from Bush in explanation of his veto: “This is a prescription for chaos and confusion,” he said, “and we must not impose it on our troops.” More than one hundred US troops were killed in April; 3,352 have been killed since the war began; more than 20,000 troops have been wounded; untold tens of thousands of Iraqis have been slaughtered and maimed; hundreds of billions of dollars have been wasted and stolen; there is no functioning Iraqi government whatsoever; and Iraqi neighborhoods are ruled and ravaged by sectarian gangs waging a horrific civil war.
But that’s not chaos and confusion. Not at all.
The response from Congressional Democrats was swift and damning. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-California) spoke of the vetoed bill by saying: “We had hoped the president would have treated it with the respect that bipartisan legislation supported overwhelmingly by the American people deserved. Instead, the president vetoed the bill outright and, frankly, misrepresented what this legislation does. This bill supports the troops. In fact, it gives the president more than he asked for our troops; they deserve it. They have done their duties excellently; they have done everything that has been asked of them, all of this without, in some cases, the training, the equipment and a plan for success for them.”
“The president wants a blank check,” continued Pelosi. “The Congress is not going to give it to him. The president said, in his comments, that he did not believe in timelines, and he spoke out very forcefully against them. Yet, in 1999, on June 5, then-Governor Bush said about President Clinton, ‘I think it’s also important for the president to lay out a timetable as to how long they will be involved and when they will be withdrawn.’ Despite his past statements, President Bush refuses to apply the same standards to his own activities. Standards: That’s the issue. If the president thinks that what is happening on the ground in Iraq now is progress, as he said in his comments tonight, it is clear to see why we have a disagreement on policy with him.”
Representative Barbara Lee (D-California) echoed Speaker Pelosi’s sentiments by saying: “Rather than change course, the administration offers only increasingly desperate rhetoric about victory and surrender. The fact is that you cannot ‘win’ an occupation, just as there is no way for the United States to ‘win’ an Iraqi civil war. The American people get this. They recognize that this failed policy is making our nation and the world less safe, even if the Bush administration refuses to [admit it]. The American people are standing squarely behind us in our efforts to end the occupation of Iraq and to bring our troops home, and history will record the president’s veto of those efforts with the same ridicule as it has his ‘mission accomplished’ remarks four years ago.”
So that’s that, for now. An attempt to override this veto may be in the offing, but will be extremely difficult to achieve. Another supplemental Iraq bill will be cobbled together, with contents as yet unknown.
And more will die tomorrow in Iraq - our soldiers and their civilians alike - tomorrow and tomorrow and tomorrow again, with no end in sight, because that end was vetoed by Bush on Tuesday afternoon. So it goes. ++
Bush finally tells the truth
Doug Thompson, Capital Hill Blue
May 2, 2007
Probably a lot of hangovers at the Pentagon this morning. Bet a lot of high-ranking brass went out and got blasted after listening to President George W. Bush’s speech about his veto of the Iraq funding bill.
Or they reached for the anti-depressants after watching Bush claim that all he wants to do is listen to the military experts when it comes to his failed Iraq war.
No kidding. That’s what the man said.
Twelve weeks ago I asked the Congress to pass an emergency war spending bill that would provide our brave young men and women in uniform with the funds and flexibility they need.
Instead, members of the House and the Senate passed a bill that substitutes the opinions of politicians for the judgment of our military commanders. So a few minutes ago, I vetoed the bill.
Yep. Bush now claims the Iraq debacle is the military’s war. He had nothing to do with it. He’s protecting the right of the commanders to determine the war policy of this nation. Damn the politicians, full speed ahead.
Apparently, Bush no longer considers himself or any of his political appointees to be “politicians.”
Or he’s just suffering from one of his many memory lapses.
He forgets that “politicians” got us into this mess in the first place.
Vice President Dick Cheney is a politician. So is former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. Both are career politicians who ignored the advice of military commanders and sent American men and women to die in an ill-conceived war based on lies.
The military experts urged caution but the politicians in the White House ignored their advice and launched a war that has now cost America more than 3,500 lives, $500 billion and four years of wasted effort.
Now Bush says we must stop listening to the politicians and let the commanders run the war? Back in 2003 the commanders urged Bush to stick to the battle plan in Afghanistan, capture Osama bin Laden and forget about Iraq.
If he had listened to the military commanders back then we probably wouldn’t be mired in a Iraq civil war that we started, that we can’t win and that is destined to go down in history as America’s most monumental foreign policy blunder.
Back then, Bush had the politicians in his hip pocket and led the country in a rousing chorus of “over there” while sending others to death in his war.
Now that voters turned out his rubber-stamp Congress and elected a new leadership that wants America out of Iraq Bush decides it’s time to stop listening to politicians - or at least any politician who disagrees with him.
And, in doing so, he is setting up Iraq military commander Gen. David Petraeus to be his fall guy when we leave Iraq in defeat sometime in the future.
Like a loyal soldier, Patraeus takes orders from his commander-in-chief.
That’s the problem.
The commander-in-chief is also the President of the United States.
The last time we checked, the President is also a politician.
For once George W. Bush told the truth. He said politicians are the problem.
Case closed. ++
Bush’s farewell tantrum
Paul Campos, Rocky Mountain News
May 1, 2007
A story in The New York Times makes it clear White House officials are giving off-the-record interviews designed to dampen expectations regarding Iraq. These officials are saying that the administration will make no interim reports on the situation until September, and that in any event people shouldn’t expect much in the way of military or political progress by then.
This is a welcome dose of realism after months of optimistic statements from the Bush administration, claiming we would know by the end of the summer if the latest troop escalation was “working.” As Lt. Gen. David Petraeus, the commander of the American military in Iraq has emphasized, the kind of counterinsurgency campaign his troops are now fighting takes years to “work” in any meaningful sense, assuming it ever does.
Of course the purpose of this ratcheting down of expectations is to try to forestall the political firestorm over Iraq that gets closer with every passing month. That effort is almost certainly doomed to fail: Six months from now things in Iraq are likely to look very much as they do now. Furthermore, the odds that any marked change will be for the worse are far higher than it will be for the better (in a context like Iraq, real progress takes years under the best of circumstances, while all-out chaos is always just around the corner).
The hard political reality is that anything like “success” in Iraq, even as that term is defined down to levels that would have seemed wildly pessimistic when President Bush gave his “Mission Accomplished” speech four years ago, will require several more years of all-out commitment. That commitment will cost, at a minimum, the lives of several thousand more of our troops, along with tens of thousands of serious injuries, and hundreds of billions more tax dollars.
And of course this immense sacrifice might very well fail to achieve even the relatively modest goals the White House is now pursuing (the word “victory” has become noticeably absent from the president’s speeches).
Whatever one thought of the original decision to invade Iraq, the political question the nation now faces could not be clearer: Should we ask our troops to continue to fight this war, and our children to pay for it through future tax increases? (The option of paying for it ourselves would require some sacrifice on the part of the average voter, so it never seems to have been considered seriously).
The American people have already answered that question, and their answer is “No.” The Republicans lost 30 Congressional seats in last fall’s election, while the Democrats lost none, largely because the American people were voting against the war. Every opinion poll shows that, by large majorities, Americans support the efforts of Democrats to force President Bush to begin withdrawing our troops.
That pressure will only grow. As increasingly panicky Republicans are all too aware, this is still a democracy, which means America will begin to withdraw from Iraq no later than January of 2009, even if bringing this about requires an electoral rout of the Republican Party in November of next year.
In the end, President Bush’s failure to heed the will of the people isn’t so much an act of principle, but rather an outburst of sheer peevishness. With Democrats in control of Congress, he’s no longer getting a blank check to fund his military adventures. He finds this frustrating, so he’s stamping his foot, covering his ears, and taking his party down with him.
All this is exactly what one would expect in the way of a political farewell gesture from a spoiled rich kid who never grew up. Future generations of historians will note George W. Bush made a mess of every real job he ever had - and, unfortunately for America, the presidency of the United States proved to be no exception. ++
Paul Campos is a professor of law at the University of Colorado.
Bush In The Bunker
Sean-Paul Kelley, HuffPo
04.30.2007
I doubt President Bush is drinking again (although with him, anything is possible). That being said Bush probably feels like he is living in a pressure cooker (one of his own making, I hasten to add). And it appears he is not happy with it!
From tonight’s uber-insider Washington newsletter The Nelson Report (sub reqd):
Sometimes insider gossip seems to confirm what all us outsiders think we’re seeing, so, for what it’s worth…we’re hearing that some big money players up from Texas recently paid a visit to their friend in the White House. The story goes that they got out exactly one question, and the rest of the meeting consisted of The President in an extended whine, a rant, actually, about no one understands him, the critics are all messed up, if only people would see what he’s doing things would be OK…etc., etc.
This is called a “bunker mentality” and it’s not attractive when a friend does it. When the friend is the President of the United States, it can be downright dangerous. Apparently the Texas friends were suitably appalled, hence the story now in circulation.
Its relevance to various current issues is all too obvious, including the fate of World Bank President Paul Wolfowitz. Ask anyone at or close to the Bank, and you know, just as a professional, that Wolfowitz’s effectiveness is finished, no matter what. But there are now other issues in play, assuming you think that the US role in selecting the Bank leadership remains important.
Here’s a private comment summing up the entire situation, from a Loyal Reader out in the real world of the Rocky Mountains, who happens to be a lifetime Republican, and a business person. We pass it along, as it is representative of comments we get ALL the time from Republican friends…a mixture of hyperbole, irony, and angst…and is thus a cautionary tale in itself:
Sometimes I am tempted to feel sorry for Republicans like this, but then I remember that in the aftermath of 9/11 they choose tax-cuts and short-term partisan gain over national unity and then I realize they are and will get their just desserts.
As Nelson’s interlocutor writes:
“You know, if Bush would stop his self-indulgent stubbornness for half a day, he could see plain as day that he has an opportunity to retain American control of the World Bank by easing Wolfie out. If he tries to keep Wolfie in that spot, American control could end.
I really wonder whether his failure to distinguish between necessary toughness and catastrophically shoot-ourselves-(America)-in-our-foot pigheadedness results from biological anomaly. His inability to harvest experience, and so to think and form successful judgements, is just so inexplicable”.
Actually it’s not inexplicable at all. See, Bush’s interests–his legacy, his leverage vis-a-vis Congress and the like–diverge starkly from those of the U.S., the World Bank and the international community insofar as this: if it doesn’t benefit Bush or redound to him in some positive way–most often only in a short term, expedient political sense–it’s not worth the effort.
But I digress. Back to Nelson:
Assuming the Europeans want Wolfowitz out badly enough to compromise with the White House on his replacement, ARE there qualified Republican players available, at this point? One might be tempted to remind Bush that then-Deputy Secretary of State Bob Zoellick wanted the Bank very much, and one might be tempted to add that Zoellick would have been a perfect choice professionally and personally…one who would never have embarrassed himself, the President, and his country, as Wolfowitz seems intent on doing.
One would probably be wrong to remind Bush of all this, and in any event, indicators are Zoellick rather enjoys making a zillion dollars as a big time investment banker, and so maybe he’s not available.
One might then be tempted to suggest the former Asia Subcommittee chair, Rep. Jim Leach, an Iowa Republican whose defeat last Fall came almost entirely due to the war in Iraq, and who would be seen by most of the rest of the world as a superb choice from his days as a Foreign Service officer, and his three decades in the House, during which he served on both Foreign Affairs and, if memory serves, the Banking Committee.
Of course Leach is a “liberal Republican”…an endangered species, and not one generally found south of the Pecos River…and he was a persistent critic of Bush North Korea policy until the White House finally took his advice, and let Asst. Sec. State Chris Hill actually practice diplomacy. Leach is probably still waiting for the thank-you call on that.
But if temperament, talent, and training has anything to do with it, and with Wolfowitz now absolutely untenable, perhaps the White House might want to give Leach a call, over in his Wilson Center office. Just a suggestion.
But I imagine the White House will probably call Doug Feith, John Bolton or maybe even crazy Curt Weldon to run the bank when Wolfowitz goes. For Bush it’s always about Bush’s short-term political gain and nothing more.
I agree with him that Bob Zoellick would be a solid choice. ++
The rise and fall of America’s political right
Eight years of Bush are going to kill the the GOP
Larry Beinhart, Alternet
May 2, 2007
There is no real name for the movement that took over America six years ago and continues run it. That’s part of the reason for its success. Its very vagueness makes it hard to attack.
In actuality, it is not a single entity.
It is made up of three main parts.
Corporatism, which is based on the belief that whatever makes money is good–and should not be restrained.
Neo-con megalomania, which is the belief that American power is absolute, irresistible, and always good, and should therefore be used–without restraint.
And right-wing religion, which is the certainty that this movement’s form of Christianity is God-commanded; therefore it should rule America and, through America, the world–and any restraint against it is opposition to God.
To add to the confusion, this movement did not stand out on its own.
Its proponents entered into the existing Republican Party and the old Goldwater-Reagan conservative movement. They brought those people along with them (roughly half the voting population) and ran for office under the guise of being Republicans and conservatives.
Most of what they said they stood for was in the mainstream.
Capitalism is good. Being strong is good. Education, financial security, and trade are good. America is a good, idealistic country. It’s good that America defeated its enemies in the past, like the Nazis and the Soviets, and it’s a good idea that we remain capable of doing it in the future. Faith and belief in a higher power is good. We should be careful about foreign military adventures, though once we are attacked we have to be vigorous in our response and fight them over there before we have to fight them over here.
All that sounds reasonable, appealing, and familiar.
What distinguishes Bushism from old-line Republicanism and reasonable conservatism is not the names on their beliefs, it’s the quality of their beliefs. The beliefs of Bushism are theological.
Theological thinking creates powerful and convincing rhetoric.
There are two reasons for this.
People with theological beliefs don’t mind lying. It’s for the greater good.
This has been combined with the corporate attitude toward truth: “Coke adds life!” It doesn’t matter if it’s true or false, or absolutely meaningless. If it moves the product, that’s what you say.
The result is spinning, which is more effective than straight-out lying. For years, Bush was a master of spin. If you analyze his speeches, it is exceedingly rare to find an outright lie that you can nail to the table. Yet he was able to lead his listeners to conclusions that were absolutely false.
The classic example is in his 2003 State of the Union address, in which he said, “The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.” The substance was absolutely false. He had been told as much by the CIA. The consequences of creating a false impression were vast, tragic, and intensely stupid. Yet, by putting the opening clause on it, citing the British government–whose intelligence service did, at one time, think there was reason to believe it–it is not, technically, a lie.
People with theological beliefs routinely lie to themselves.
In their theological minds, the theory is always true. Only reality is flawed.
When the CIA stated that there was no substantive link between al-Qaeda and Iraq, Cheney disputed their claim and in effect said, “It must be true! Find intelligence that does agree, or if you’re too incompetent, I’ll find it myself.” Bush believes that cutting taxes always increases revenues and creates jobs. Yet year after year, when the numbers came back and it didn’t happen, the response was to insist on more tax cuts, because the theology says it has to happen.
Listening to Bush–and Cheney and their supporters–is exactly like listening to a Marxist explaining away Stalin. And Mao, and the gulags, and the East German secret police, and the madness of Ceausescu.
They were a new force. They believed completely in their cause and that they should have power. They arrived cloaked in old and familiar and reassuring rhetoric, so they encountered little resistance, and conquered rapidly and thoroughly.
What is astonishing is how rapidly their ideas are being revealed as bankrupt.
The war in Iraq has demolished the myth of America’s unlimited power.
Iraq was the neo-cons’ great experiment in democracy and free-market capitalism. The true believers really believed that simply by having people vote for a democratic-style government and sweeping away all restrictions on free markets, a little America would instantly emerge–stable, friendly, prosperous, the envy of its neighbors. Instead, it created a hell on Earth.
Anti-government government was exposed as bankrupt by Katrina.
Prosecutor-gate is revealing, quite rapidly, how the quest for power, fueled by theological righteousness, tossed out all other virtues–like justice, fairness, and honesty.
Economists and pundits are behind the curve, but ordinary Americans get that Bush economics do not work for them. And that what’s good for giant corporations is not necessarily what’s good for the USA.
Religion has been a sacred cow. But the excesses of Christian power and the violent madness of Islamic fundamentalism have changed that. Now atheist books are on the best-seller list. Because it is necessary, it has become respectable to genuinely question why and how and what people believe.
Theological thinking, itself, has been revealed as bankrupt.
It is almost impossible to overstate how disastrous the eight years of Bush are going to turn out to be for the Republican Party and for the right. It is not entirely visible yet, but this tumble downhill is going to turn out to be a fall off a cliff.
The Democrats, and the left, have a great opportunity here. I hope they make something out of it, because those other people are dangerous idiots. If they are going to, they can’t simply fall back on their old rhetoric. The world has changed. It always changes. It will keep changing. They have to come up with something new. Something that combines realism and good, hard-headed American pragmatism with ideals. Then make it sound exciting. ++
“So keep fightin’ for freedom and justice, beloveds, but don’t you forget to have fun doin’ it. Lord, let your laughter ring forth. Be outrageous, ridicule the fraidy-cats, rejoice in all the oddities that freedom can produce. And when you get through kickin’ ass and celebratin’ the sheer joy of a good fight, be sure to tell those who come after how much fun it was.”
~ Molly Ivins, 1944 - 2007
In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.
May 2nd, 2007