Recent news stories have reported that the U.S. failed to meet the benchmarks established by the Bush Administration for progress in Iraq.Of course, in keeping with the Administration’s penchant for constantly moving the goal line, the White House has been downplaying the news.
By intervening in the sentencing of Scooty Libby, George W. Bush has finally demonstrated the deep contempt he holds for the American people, the Constitution, and the Judicial system.This decision was made not in the interest of justice but out of self-interest to protect a corrupt administration, a failed presidency, and a fading legacy.
Bush essentially has told the American people that he and his friends are above the law. And that he doesn't serve the American people, but rather his own friends and cronies. Does Bush intend to review all sentences and reverse any that he deems harsh?
Bush similarly showed contempt for the country, its people, and its laws when he supported Dick Cheney's ludicrous claim that the Vice President is not a part of the Executive Branch.
This man's poor judgment and leadership already have led this country into an ill-advised quagmire in Iraq that was based on personal animosity, false pretenses and misleading information given to the American people. His actions have led to instability in the Middle East, the emboldenment of Iran, and inflamed anti-Americanism and terrorist activity around the world, not to mention the deaths of thousands of American service people.
Assuming we survive this man has done, there already is consensus that George W. Bush will go down as the worst president in American history. When he ends his presidency, he'll leave a country in worse peril than when he arrived. He does not even have the decency to make any substantive attempt clean up the mess; rather, he obviously has chosen to play out the clock so that whoever follows him will be left holding the bag to clean up the mess created by his incompetency and mismanagement.
Have you no sense of decency, sir? At long last, have you left no sense of decency?
Now that the prosecution in the trial charging Phil Spector for the murder of actress Lana Clarkson has just about rested, the Spector Defense Dream Team has begun its work.Scooter Libby? Let’s face it, this was a tempest in a teapot that only Beltway insiders cared about. Libby played the good soldier and threw himself on the grenade to protect the people in the regime who really matter in the party machinery. Otherwise, all the trial did was give expose the cynical game the Washington establishment and the media play with each other. Libby goes to jail and the American public is supposed to feel justice was done. No doubt Libby will be given a presidential pardon by December 31, 2008, and will have a cushy job waiting for him at Halliburton—assuming, of course, he and his family are willing to move to Dubai.
A recent cover story in Time magazine recently asked, “How the Right Went Wrong.” The answer to that, my friends, is as old as time itself (no pun intended): Hubris. Pure hubris (which incidentally, is one of the Seven Deadly Sins. Why do those Christian talibanists often fail to remember that one mortal sin?)
Well, having spun the Wheel of Woes, I have decided to weigh in on the controversy over the firing of U.S. attorneys that appears to be leading into the White House.
Like the Libby case, it looks like the “cover up” may be worse than the actual “crime,” with Attorney General Alberto Gonzales poised to be the next scapegoat who’ll be taking take one for the team, as the Justice Department scrambles to come up with a consistent story about the firings.
This latest controversy brings to mind the infamous 1973 “Saturday Night Massacre,” when then-President Richard Nixon—at the height of the Watergate scandal—ordered Attorney General Elliot Richardson to fire the independent special prosecutor assigned to the case, Archibald Cox. Refusing to compromise the integrity of his personal reputation as well as that of the Justice Department, Richardson resigned. As did the Deputy Attorney General, William Ruckelshaus, when he was given the same order. (Solicitor General Robert Bork was subsequently named acting head of the Justice Department, who then fired Cox.)
While a dark time in American history, the episode was a unique moment when the Constitution, personal and institutional integrity, and the federal government’s checks and balances were tested to their limits and, perhaps in a rather torturous manner, affirmed.
Clearly, Mr. Gonzales does not seem to recognize his responsibilities as the highest law enforcement official of the nation. Instead, he feels being subservient and beholden to political patronage is more important than upholding the integrity of the Justice Department’s reputation and integrity. And that without having the trust of Congress or the nation, it will be impossible to for him to fulfill his responsibilities as Attorney General.
Who would have thought it possible that a presidential administration could come along that could make one pine for the moral certitude of the Nixon era?
If ever a photo underscored how much in bed this Administration and the Bush family are with oil interests, this certainly is it. I mean, they're actually FUCKING HOLDING HANDS!
Here Bush hugs Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva after a news conference in Brazil.
Here Bush and his loverboy are at it again, at yet another event, after a quick change out of sweat-stained clothes.
My God, who'd've thought it possible, but McCain actually even looks gayer than the President. If Bush wasn't a draft dodger and so scared of combat, I'm sure he wouldn't've minded spending some quality time in the Hanoi Hilton with all those big manly pilots (nudge, nudge, wink, wink).
If any Conservative whore decides to shoot her mouth off about faggot-loving politicians, they should first look in their own backyard at their own closeted Decider in Chief.
At the end of the great David Lean film, Lawrence of Arabia, a pan-Arab Council—a nascent attempt at nationalism and self-rule—collapses in Damascus when the various tribes and sects can find no common ground and are unable to restore the city’s infrastructure and other basic services. Waiting strategically in the wings, the British swoop in to restore stability and thus create colonial control in the Middle East. I often think of this scene when I hear descriptions of Iraq’s parliament fraying due to sectarian conflict.
Today, many of those same conflicts inform Iraq and the Middle East. A recent cover story in Time magazine looks into the historical roots of the schism between the Sunnis and Shi’ites in Iraq and asks “whether anything can be done to stop it.”
At the risk of sounding politically incorrect and engaging for a moment in realpolitik, is this necessarily a bad thing? Yes, the U.S. brought down a regime that to some extent had subdued (if only superficially) differences between two sects of Islam that go back to the 7th century—differences that the U.S. presence has fanned into open civil war. But ultimately the bloodletting is of their own choosing. In the Time article, someone from one sect is quoted as saying that if he saw a child from a rival sect about to drown he would not reach out his hand to save him. I ask you, is that a society worth salvaging or worth more American lives? In a time when the U.S. is looking for a way out of the quagmire, it seems to me that this is the perfect opening for us: that we did our part and now it’s up to the Iraqis and their neighbors to decide if they want peace and stability.
And before moral relativists go on to argue that such a view is insensitive or intolerant of another religion’s beliefs, I’d like to hear cases where Muslims are institutionally defending the right of Christians (let alone Jews) to practice their faith within their own borders, in the same way Western countries have bent over backwards to ensure that Muslims are able to observe their customs in the West. Anyone? Anyone?
As many scholars and observers have noted, Islam has not reconciled itself or adapted to the modern world. Over the centuries and continuing into the present day, Christianity began losing absolute control over their respective communities as new thinking and philosophies gradually gave way to individual self-determinism, where the individual exercises greater control over their actions, beliefs and destiny. Such changes had a broad impact on society and politics (arguably reaching its apex with the founding of the United States), and were made possible through literacy and broad-based education. As a result, over time, Christianity lost its preeminence as an all-powerful, patriarchical political institution and has evolved back into being a religious and moral institution.
By contrast, in much of the modern age, Islam countries became colonies of imperial nations. In addition, its rulers—first the colonizers and then later the native people put in power by the departing imperial nations—found it in their best interests to keep the local populations uneducated and ignorant.
Ignorance of the masses is perhaps the most effective way to keep a populace in thrall, and nowhere is that more evident than in Islamic nations where democracy not only is absent, but their rulers blame the twin “Great Satans” of the United States and Israel for their people’s poverty as a convenient way to divert attention from their own failings and to justify continued absolute authority and power. As this suggests, in many of these nations, it is their own religious and political leaders who are the real oppressors, by giving them little education, political or religious freedom, or the opportunity to be prosperous, successful or to think for themselves.
Until that changes, and these nations choose to become modern nation-states that respect the right to individual self-determination as well as international law and conventions, the following denunciation will remain true, as mouthed by the title character in Lawrence which remains surprisingly and sadly prescient today: “So long as the Arabs fight tribe against tribe, so long will they be a little people, a silly people—greedy, barbarous, and cruel.”
According to the L.A. Times, Colorado is considering using convicts as farmworkers. Apparently, as a result of passing some of the strictest anti-illegal immigration laws in the country, farms are experiencing a severe labor shortage and crops are rotting in the fields.
Hey, didn’t Colorado pass these laws to ensure that illegal immigrants weren't taking jobs away from hard working Americans? I presume Colorado’s unemployment rate is not zero, so now that illegal immigrants have been forced to look outside the state for work, why aren’t the Coloradans who had lost these jobs to migrant workers rushing to fill the void? Rather than hire convicts, shouldn’t the state find some way to bus in workers from outlying areas around the state and have them stay in the same housing where the illegal immigrants stayed? This is good, honest work that can put food on the table.
One can only conclude that Coloradans--particularly its youth and unemployed--are lazy layabouts. I mean how hard can it be to spend 8 to 10 hours a day picking vegetables from the ground?
