Democrats & Liberals Archives

The Coup Advances

This article follows up on some of the issues in A Slow Motion Coup

The evidence continues to mount that there is a coup occurring in the United States. Across the political spectrum, voices are rising in alarm. Among those voices are Gene Healy and Timothy Lynch of the conservative and libertarian CATO Institute with their monograph Power Surge: The Constitutional record of George W. Bush or here.

The executive summary of Powersurge is damning in and of itself:

"In recent judicial confirmation battles, President Bush has repeatedly--and correctly--stressed fidelity to the Constitution as the key qualification for service as a judge. It is also the key qualification for service as the nation's chief executive. On January 20, 2005, for the second time, Mr. Bush took the presidential oath of office set out in the Constitution, swearing to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." With five years of the Bush administration behind us, we have more than enough evidence to make an assessment about the president's commitment to our fundamental legal charter.

Unfortunately, far from defending the Constitution, President Bush has repeatedly sought to strip out the limits the document places on federal power. In its official legal briefs and public actions, the Bush administration has advanced a view of federal power that is astonishingly broad, a view that includes

* a federal government empowered to regulate core political speech--and restrict it greatly when it counts the most: in the days before a federal election;

* a president who cannot be restrained, through validly enacted statutes, from pursuing any tactic he believes to be effective in the war on terror;

* a president who has the inherent constitutional authority to designate American citizens suspected of terrorist activity as "enemy combatants," strip them of any constitutional protection, and lock them up without charges for the duration of the war on terror-- in other words, perhaps forever; and

* a federal government with the power to supervise virtually every aspect of American life, from kindergarten, to marriage, to the grave.

President Bush's constitutional vision is, in short, sharply at odds with the text, history, and structure of our Constitution, which authorizes a government of limited powers."


The concerns of many were only confirmed by the events of this week - the confirmation of Hayden as head of the CIA and the raiding of Representative Jefferson's congressional office.

Not surprisingly, General Michael Hayden was confirmed to head the CIA by a vote of 78 to 15 with seven not voting. In other words, a landslide. This is amazing when you consider he was actively involved in the questionable activities of NSA "eavesdropping" which have yet to be investigated, and that he did not know what the content or intent of the Fourth Amendment was.

ASIDE: It is reported that Hayden is the first active or retired military person to head the CIA. This is true, though the last military CIA director was retired Admiral Stansfield Turner, who replaced George H. W. Bush as director when he became Vice President. Stansfield later argued that the CIA should be disbanded. To find an active military head of the CIA, one has to go back to General Walter Bedell Smith who served from 1950 - 1953.

In the case of the probe of the activities of Representative William Jefferson of Louisiana, the Congress (including Republicans) are now up in arms over the violation of Constitutional separation of power. NOW they get upset. It is fine when the executive branch tears asunder the rights of the people, but not when they infringe on the privacy rights of the Congress. It is interesting that the only apparent Republican concerns on such a breach of separation of powers is the seizing of documents from a Congressional office. They have not been too concerned about Bush's use of signing statements to exempt the executive branch from legislation it doesn't like (torture controls for example), or even the right to preemptively declare war on another nation. But invade their inner sanctum and take their documents? An egregious violation of the Constitution.

Don't take me wrong. I do believe that the executive branch significantly over stepped the boundaries in this case. Perhaps it sent a wake up call to the Republicans who by and large have been rubber stamps for whatever the Bush Administration wants to do - including maceration the Constitution and breaching the boundaries of the separation of powers. It is both sad and somewhat heart warming for them to be in such a position - a position that clearly informs them that they are not "protected" either. At least there was a purported warrant in this case which is more than the rest of us get in the "war on terrorism." Perhaps, they are alarmed that if this breach goes unchallenged, that they also risk being charged as enemy combatants."

To quiet the storm, Bush has ordered that the material from Jefferson's Congressional office be sealed for 45 days. It seems likely that this may kill the outrage all together. By the time they are unsealed many members of Congress will be running hot and heavy for election - and wanting to draw heavily on the big dollars that Bush attracts to the party. It will also be out of the mind of the public. Perhaps there will be a page 15 story when the records are once more opened for investigation.

The coup is proceding along its course, but certainly more people are alarmed. However, alarm at the immense passing of power to the President and the executive branch does not seem to result in any activity to stop it from happening. We now have a crowd standing around the burning house looking at the fire, but no one seems to be getting a hose.

Posted by Rowan Wolf at May 27, 2006 11:28 AM
Comment #151906

Rowan, the fire hoses are out and being manned. All folks are waiting for is November 7, when the water is turned on.

The problem is, as you allude, that folks are standing ready to aim the hoses in the wrong direction.

The branch of government which is charged to maintain the Constitutional checks and balances of power, has been packed with Justices, as is the waiting list in lower courts, who view the Constitution as granting the Executive broad authority over the other branches of government based on national security and commander in chief of the military provisions in the Constitution.

Elected offices are what voters are aiming at for November. But, the real problem lies not there, but in the Judiciary which is unwilling to maintain the checks and balances where national security is concerned. Lifetime appointments to the Supreme Court insure this packing of the courts with Justices favorable to preeminent Executive branch authority, is our future’s Achille’s heel. And Achille’s heel which, terrorists intentionally or not, are exploiting by making us so afraid that we stand by and watch our Presidency morph into a quasi-dictatorship all in the name of our safety and security.

Adolph Hitler and the German people followed a very similar course in the years preceding the invasion of Poland and takeover of Austria.

Posted by: David R. Remer at May 27, 2006 12:19 PM
Comment #151907

Anyone really surprised after the neo-cons stole the 2000 election. We are witnessing the consolidation of a dictatorship.Not by Bush in particular. He is a puppet,a figurehead,but by corporate fascist.They will not get off the throne easily.

Posted by: BillS at May 27, 2006 12:20 PM
Comment #151913

Rowan Wolf

The sad part about your piece is that there are people out there who believe this crap.

This type of hysteria is also counter-productive to your (collective) efforts to remove anyone from power becasu you guys just can’t get a story straight.Check out your college American Pundit’s piece below on that nut job Phelps ot John Travellini’s breathless announcement on this side last week that Rove was indicted.

Collective,your credibility has been impeached and you guys now are a caricture of yourselves……. myth is taken for reality by you guys and the fantasy of the left is well,just that… a poppycock.

Myth:The Mike Hayden deal:
This guy got the job because he is the hands down most qualified.Instead you see a sinister plot.This guy is a patriot who has served his country admirably yet you shit all over him.Your contention that the uniform precludes him from service is ludicrous.
All that this sort of stuff does on your part is further the hypocricy of your thought.He was confirmed by the other “check” to your “balance”…a Senate Confirmation committee.Since you don’t like the result,you talk coup.Bullshit

Myth #2.
In United States vs. Nixon,executive priviledge during a CRIMINAL investigation was shot down in flames.Here the issue is a legitimate question that ultimately should be decided by the Supreme Court…does the holding apply to a CRIMINAL investigation in the legislative branch as well?

Myth #3
The issue of NSA wiretapping withing US borders…name me ONE American who has had his right violated…one….I dare you.

You guys are pathetic.You see shadows and conspiracy around every corner.You piss and moan about a stolen election.You give zero support to our troops fighting to protect our nation chosing instead to send messages to the enemy that we are a nation torn from within.

If a conspiracy were to happen,it would be from the left,not the right.Thankfully,that will never happen because the brainpower to pull off such a stunt is non-existent on that side.

Why don’t you guys move over and play pocket pool and let us big guys do the work.


Posted by: sicilianeagle at May 27, 2006 12:49 PM
Comment #151916

I just love it when the rightwingers say the war in Iraq is to protect our nation. That is the most bizarre reading of what happened they can come up with. I was sooo terrorized by Iraq. I am so much more at peace because we have killed so many of their citizens (and gotten NOT a small amount of our military killed in the bloodlust for oil, as well). Don’t preach about protecting our security. Use some accurate term, or your argument is a non starter. Peace groups were targets of the eavesdropping as your media probably failed to mention.

Posted by: liberal patriot at May 27, 2006 1:05 PM
Comment #151917

liberal patriot

Name them…please…direct me to one non-biased report.


Posted by: sicilianeagle at May 27, 2006 1:17 PM
Comment #151920


You mean these terrorist ultra-violent QUAKERS the FBI is monitoring?

Posted by: Aldous at May 27, 2006 1:23 PM
Comment #151923

If really believe that a coup d’état is occurring, you have the moral imperative to start the revolution.

If you are not willing to pledge your “Life, Liberty and Sacred Honor” then stop annoying us with your whining

Posted by: rogueDBA at May 27, 2006 1:34 PM
Comment #151924


NSA WIRETAPPING….Hello?? Hello???

Wiretappine..telephone intercepts…hello….that is an FBI investigation….get your facts straight

Posted by: sicilianeagle at May 27, 2006 1:41 PM
Comment #151925

They’ll have to disarm 20 million citizens by force before they can successfully execute a coup. No way. Thank you 2nd amendment.

‘I pity da foo who try to throw a coup on America’ (T., Mr.)

Posted by: beijing rob at May 27, 2006 1:47 PM
Comment #151930

This is another excellent article. It is good to see from your linking articles that conservatives and libertarians are joining us in opposition to this corrupt, power hungry regime. While I originally thought that McCain-Feingold was a step in the correct direction, the article by Healy and Lynch was persuasive. At best McCain-Feingold was ineffective, at worst it is part of a slow motion coup. I have a problem with labeling money as free speech because it means that rich and powerful get mare of it - they can and do shout us down - which abridges our free speech. What value is free speech if no one can hear you over the roar of the mass media megaphone of big money special interest? Yet the application of McCain-Feingold is more restrictive of free speech - perhaps intentionally or as unintended consequence.

Some things that would help with this problem:

1.) Public financing of elections. Give the special interest their megaphones, but give political leaders a chance to run and be heard independent of big money special interest.

2.) Some form of rank order or instant run off voting that would empower people to vote for third party /independent candidates without “throwing” their vote away.

3.) Reversing the trend toward mass media monopolies.

4.) Changing the primaries back to caucuses like Iowa’s that empower grass roots organisations to have a voice in picking the candidates instead of big money and big media.

5.) Indexing the number of U.S. Senators to population growth such that each state would have, OH say, 4 Senators instead of two. This would mean that each Senator would have less constituents and so, would be closer to his / her constituents. This would make the Senators more representative of the actual political desires of their states.

6.) Somehow putting an end to gerrymandering. Good luck with that.

Good luck with any of these reforms. Good luck with any reforms.

Good luck with the survival and or thriving of the U.S. under this regime and the coming regime of Jeb Bush.

Posted by: Ray Guest at May 27, 2006 1:55 PM
Comment #151931


The NSA won’t give the Justice Department the Security Clearances to investigate it ….Hello?? Hello???

And in other News… Congress became united for the first time ever in stopping the FBI from investigating corrupt Congressmen… hello?

Posted by: Aldous at May 27, 2006 2:02 PM
Comment #151933

I would not say a coup is occurring. It has already happened. What we see now is consolidation. The real threat to liberty has always been from the right. Was it the left that was responsible for the Mc Carthy purges? The 2nd amendment that should have provided some measure of protection has been sidestepped by methodically moveing most gun owners to the right.

Posted by: BillS at May 27, 2006 2:06 PM
Comment #151936

Seriously. I dare them.

Posted by: Beijing Rob at May 27, 2006 2:09 PM
Comment #151953

Here is another article at Alternet called
“Top 10 signs of the impending police state”

Posted by: Cole at May 27, 2006 3:24 PM
Comment #151956

Americans have more to fear in losing their democracy by majority consent than by violent overthrow of the government. I am paraphrasing one of our founding fathers or close associates.

Ceding constitutional liberties in favor of security is precisely how democracy is lost with the people’s consent. Ceding separation of powers and checks and balances in the name of security is precisely how democracy is lost with popular consent.

Don’t like it? Vote Out Incumbents for Democracy in November.

Posted by: David R. Remer at May 27, 2006 3:45 PM
Comment #151974

The coup began on the day Ronald Reagan was elected. It was completed on the day Dubya was annointed by 5 members of the U.S. Supreme Court after he’d lost the general election.

The late Chicago Tribune journalist, George Seldes, said it well nearly 70 years ago: conservatism by its very nature evolves into fascism.

A study of fascism shows that the unholy marriage of corporatism (traditional GOP, in our case) and religious fanaticism (fundamentalist right, in our case) is the means by which fascism is realized. Mussolini, Franco, Hitler, and George W. Bush… what a lineage.

Check out David Gergen’s excellent article:

Posted by: Dr. Poshek at May 27, 2006 5:53 PM
Comment #151985

Dr. Poshek, I have long rejected such views of the GOP as having fascist tendencies. But, in light of the breaches of our Constitution and separation of powers undertaken by Pres. Bush, and conceded by the Republican Congress, I have to admit, the reality is becoming matched with the liberals rhetoric.

Republicans and the GOP could do themselves the greatest favor for their party’s future by electing as many new GOP challengers and rejecting as many GOP incumbents as possible in their primary races.

Posted by: David R. Remer at May 27, 2006 7:26 PM
Comment #151992

From the book Inviting Disaster: Lessons from the Edge of Technology Harper Business, 2001:

(This paragraph is in a section dealing with Three-Mile Island)

The operator’s actions will make more sense after knowing how key parts of the plant were hidden from view, how many instruments gave false readings, and how operators’ early training had given them a mindset to close off the emergency cooling. They saw this last, desperate measure as the only way to keep the reactor pipes from bursting. Studies of human behavior in other disasters have often shown this “cognitive lock” phenomenon, where those on the scene decide on a course of action and hold to it against all contradictory evidence. Cognitive lock is a perfect match with an opaque and complex system. Together they have the power to turn a minor problem into a very dangerous situation.

Are the chills running down your back yet?

The book I quoted from talks about how most disasters do not come from one weakness in a system, but a number of them coming together, like cracks in a piece of fatigued metal, to suddenly and catastrophically fail.

The trouble isn’t that the Republicans are fascists by nature, necessarily, though Dick Cheney seems closest to the actual article. No, the trouble is both that the Republicans intentionally put themselves in cognitive lock for the sake of political unity, and that they have this tendency to play fast and loose with government, and to cripple and restrain it in different areas, according to their political philosophy. They also tend to be advocates of fudging the law when it gets in the way of righteous causes like going after criminals, subversives and terrorists.

It is no coicidence that so many disasters have befallen us under Bush. Between him and Cheney. What you see as parts of a coup, I see as defects in the policy practice and performance of the Bush administration lining up to create problematic issues and failures in the system.

The problem is not a fascist takeover. The problem is our government getting so careless with the complex society it’s supposed to watch over that it ends up lining up more disasters for us to suffer through.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at May 27, 2006 8:22 PM
Comment #152003

I am not sure if there is an actual intentional slow motion coup or not. We - people such as myself - vacillate wildly between seeing the Bush Regime as incompetent idiots or evil geniuses. While it might be possible for them to be some mix of the two, we sort of think that they need to be one or the other. On the other hand - to create my own Bushism: If it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck - uh… uh… it probably isn’t a zebra… so uh… uh… look for a horse’s rear end - and - uh… uh… you will find Dick Cheney. So, what does that mean? Whether they sat out as evil geniuses to create a slow motion coup or simply backed into one through incompetent idea-logic idiocy makes no difference. The fact is that they are profoundly undermining the foundations of our constitutional democracy.

Posted by: Ray Guest at May 27, 2006 9:17 PM
Comment #152005

Many good Germans supported Hitler. How many good Americans support Bush?

Posted by: Ray Guest at May 27, 2006 9:30 PM
Comment #152011

Here are a few related entries from Ray’s Breif Dictionary of Political Buzz words and Phrases:

A few bad apples (A few bad Apples) noun. Synonymous with “Whitehouse officials”. As in: A few bad apples in the Whitehouse blamed low ranking soldiers in Abu Ghireb, Gitmo, Afghanistan, and CIA Black Sites for actually doing the things that were suggested in countless Whitehouse memos.

Affirmative Action (Af-firm-a-tive AKT-shun) Noun. 1.) Preemptive war. As in: George Bush took the affirmative action of spending over 300 billion (one trillion) dollars and conquering a weak Arab Nation which was ruled by a despotic secular dictator who obviously would never have trusted or cooperated with fanatical fundamentalist religious extremist – but it is A OK – most of the money went to Halliburton through no bid contracts (see no bid contracts). 2.) The behavior of yes men in the administration of George the Second. As in: Top Whitehouse officials take the affirmative action of telling George Bush exactly what he wants to hear. 3.) The willful production of a false budget crisis. As in: George Bush took the affirmative action of cutting taxes for the rich with the intention of creating budget shortages so that he could have an excuse to cut vital services to the poor, elderly, and needy. 4.) The active creation of prewar intelligence. As in: The administration of George Bush took the affirmative action of cherry picking intelligence from highly dubious sources in order to make the case for war. 5.) The act of saving social security. As in George Bush took the affirmative action of pretending to try to save social security, while in point of fact, trying to privatize and destroy it, there by creating yet one more huge boondoggle for the rich… the rich who would have profited from the initial influx of capital into the stock market there by driving stock prices through the roof… the rich who would have profited again by buying up all of the cheap stocks after the stock market went back down when all of the baby boomers had to sell their stock at they same time… and the rich who also would have profited from all of the transaction fees in both directions… and the rich who would have profited by not having to help pay the baby boomers their social security that the baby boomers have worked their whole life to earn… and the rich who have already profited from the huge tax breaks that they were given - which just coincidentally - happened to be exactly equal to the excess social security payroll taxes that the baby boomers were paying into the general fund before they retire… so… George Bush wanted to take the affirmative action of acting like he was saving social security. 6.) An archaic term referring to well intentioned, but naïve liberal attempts to arbitrarily achieve the American ideal of equality. 7.) Illegally money laundering corporate money through the Republican National Committee in order to subvert Texan State law. As in Tom Delay took the affirmative action of laundering corporate money through the R.N.C. in order to subvert democracy in Texas so that he could gerrymander Texas and subvert democracy in the U.S.A. Unfortunately he got the idea to gerrymander Texas from the Democrats who did it first. (see: Fool me once and ah… ah… as they say in Texas… ah… ah… two wrongs will make a lot of Republicans rich.)

American Way of Life (Amer-e-kan Way of Lif) See Missionary Position noun. 1.) (Republican meaning). The name of a particular sexually inhibited position for coitus. 2.) A collection of values – including; freedom, liberty, justice, equality and the rule of law, which are characteristic of American ideals and beliefs – but unfortunately not characteristic of American reality. 3.) A commitment to a liberal democratic form of government (liberal democratic form of government not a conservative democratic form of government). 4.) The holy dollar. 5.) The creation of political instability in the mid-east in order to drive oil prices and oil company profits through the roof. 6.) Sitting in traffic jams inside of big off-road SUVs. 7.) Orwellian speak, meaning an oligarchy of the rich and powerful manipulating the American people through so called cultural issues and the fear of terrorism, there by running American politics for their own profit and purpose. 8.) Being blessed to live in freedom and prosperity. 9.) Shooting moderate Republican lawyers. 10.) Getting subordinate female interns to lick your cigar.

Bush (Bush) Adjective. Democratic meanings: See Failure. 1.) Filthy four letter word, loosely translated as incompetent. 2.) Filthy four letter word, loosely translated as dishonest. 3.) Filthy four letter word, loosely translated as Nazi. 4.) Filthy four letter word, loosely translated as President. 5.) Filthy four letter word, loosely translated as stupid. 6.) Filthy four letter word, loosely translated as chicken hawk. 7.) Filthy four letter word, loosely translated as idiot, dry drunk, gun slingin, no account, failure. 8.) Filthy four letter word, loosely translated as King George the Incompetent. 9.) Filthy four letter word… period. Republican meanings: 1.) Simple, revered, bold, courageous – misunderstood, innocent, slandered, moral - wise, flawless, patriotic, straight forward, common sensical underdog. The Republicans are a naïve lot.

Constitution (Con-sti-tu-shun) noun. 1.) A document delineating a democratic republic characterized by the rule of law, the separation and balancing of powers between three co-equal branches of government, as well as civil rights and liberties. 2.) (Bush’s number one meaning) A old piece of paper that he is sworn to defend and protect but is not bound by. 3.) (Bush’s second meaning) Unitary Executive toilet paper.

Patriot Act Pat-tree-ot AKT) noun. 1.) Pretending to be patriotic. As in: George Bush does a patriot act by wearing an American Flag on his lapel. 2.) Pretending to be patriotic. As in: George Bush is to doing a patriot act while actually trying to claim unending wartime executive powers equivalent to a King and through attempting to pack the Supreme Court with cronies (Harriet Miers), and also through destroying the balance of powers through the Patriot Act, as well as through getting the Republican party to undermine the constitution by using the constitutional option (see constitutional option). 3.) Pretending to be patriotic. As in: George Bush is doing a patriot act while actually gutting American civil liberties and claiming the “right” to abduct, torture, and kill, without habeas corpus / due process, anyone that he designates as an enemy combatant. 4.) Pretending to be patriotic. As in: George Bush is doing a patriot act while actually claiming that he and his administration do not have to conform to the rule of law during wartime (and of course, he has declared an unending war). 5.) Pretending to be patriotic. As in: George Bush is doing a patriot act even though he used his Dad’s influence to avoid serving in Viet Nam by getting special treatment in the Air National Guard at the same time that he is a chicken hawk on war (he believes in war, as long as he does not have to be bothered by fighting it).

Posted by: Ray Guest at May 27, 2006 9:56 PM
Comment #152013

“They’ll have to disarm 20 million citizens by force before they can successfully execute a coup. No way. Thank you 2nd amendment.”

How many guns did the Branch Davidians have??
Didn’t do them a lot of good.

Posted by: Norby at May 27, 2006 10:01 PM
Comment #152032


IMO the coup began when Newt & freinds took hold in the 90’s. Actually the planning began during the Reagan years. We are now looking at the actual remaking of America from democracy to dominionist theocracy.

The question should be, “are we too far gone to get back to the democracy that has sustained us for so many years”. I truly doubt that there will be an armed uprising of any magnitude.

In all probability we, as a nation, will continue down the road of self indulgence until we either fail completely or partially, only time will tell which. Then the neo-cons will still blame the liberals for everything.

It will simply read like a shampoo bottle. Wash, rinse, repeat! Maybe, before it’s too late, the neo-con revolutionaries will smell the coffee and figure out what they’re doing is trying to destroy America.

Or we can hope at least the majority figures it out.


Posted by: KansasDem at May 27, 2006 11:50 PM
Comment #152036


I love your definitions!

The last time I was hospitalized none of my kids had the sense to shut down my puter. I’m starting over. Do you still have a website?


Posted by: KansasDem at May 27, 2006 11:56 PM
Comment #152049

There are some who praise the Second Amendment with the notion that an armed populace could repel the force of a tyrannical government, offering the Canard that the first thing the Nazis did was they started gun registrations.

I do believe that the implicit threat of a populace that is armed does work to prevent certain kinds of abuses from developing simply out of the force that the government wields.

However, that evil government that would use abusive force against its own people does not appear overnight. It comes in by degrees, and it comes in faster if that government is allowed to use the law as a bludgeon against its own people.

Besides, if you’ve waited so long, and things are that bad, then some of the guns of your fellow Americans will be turned against you.

No, the first line of defense is the first Amendment, and every amendment and article thereafter that demands that this government stick to bothering those who can actually be demonstrated worthy of such suspicion and prosecution. Defend those, and make those work, and it will be rare day when the second amendment makes itself necessary.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at May 28, 2006 12:35 AM
Comment #152050


My Blog is at: Rays Political Blog.

I have not had the time to do nearly as much writing as I think I should be doing, so lately, all that I have been posting there are copies of my WatchBlog articles. What there is of Ray’s Brief Dictionary is posted there in bits and pieces in the archives. I wanted to have at least a booklet or book of Ray’s Dictionary ready before the midterm elections, but life has other plans for me. I got the idea for Ray’s Dictionary from two places. One was Ray’s Brief Dictionary of Engineering Buzz Words that I wrote when I was working for GMs Mid / Lux Engineering as a UAW skilled Experimental 12 Volt Electrician - Product Engineering. The other source for the idea for Ray’s Brief Dictionary was that the Republicans have become very skilled at defining the terms of the debate in an Orwellian fashion. For example, they call the Estate Tax the Death Tax. It is brilliant. It frames the debate in a way that they win. So I thought that it was time that we started defining the terms of the debate. So I am just having a little fun with it. I don’t expect anyone to use Ray’s Dictionary as the defining frame. Democrats and Liberals further up the political food chain need to do that - and they are - Freedom of Choice - frames the abortion debate in our favor - just as Right to Life frames in their favor. The real truth is bigger than the frames that we put on it. None the less, for political advantage we must put realistic, believable frames on the issues that ideally will help the American people see the importance and validity of our views. What I am saying is, that there is a political game to be played, but that ideally it will be played with integrity for the purpose of educating the American people of the important principals and traditional American values that we are fighting for. I hope that I have not gotten to far off from the topic of this thread. I suppose that I can relate this back to the topic of this thread by saying that the whole point of this thread appears to be that the Bushites are not playing the political game with integrity. They appear to be manipulating the American people in a corrupt power grab that threatens the stability of our system. Anyhow, thanks for the affirmation.

Posted by: Ray Guest at May 28, 2006 12:40 AM
Comment #152055


Dead on, as usual. I would however note that the paradox implicit in any U.S. right-wing coup is that they have relied upon fostering anti-government sentiment for a large degree of their success. The constituency which is now on their side would be the very one to rise up in opposition at the first sense of infringement.

In my opinion, the question is this: when you are in a democratic society which slips into facisim or extremely centralized power, how do you know when it’s time to put your collective foot down? It is the kind of issue where if the society gets the timing wrong, their country could be ruined for a quarter-century.

This is precisely why I like the Second Amendment, and gun owners. The Second Amendment is the line in the sand between the American people and their government. It represents a boundary that mustn’t be crossed. While people are slowly pilfered of their rights, eventually it must come down to the fact that many Americans are armed, and a nation-in-arms is impossible to subdue.

Personally, I’m not a big fan of guns. I live in Beijing and, naturally, guns are outlawed here. It’s really nice and safe, but it’s also a huge factor in the subjugation of the people by their government. I wouldn’t trade the Second Amendment for anything, and respect people who truly understand what the Amendment underscores.

Posted by: Beijing Rob at May 28, 2006 1:28 AM
Comment #152056

The trick is, the time to stand up for your rights is at the first sign of them being taken away. Saves a lot of trouble and complication of undoing the bad shit that has resulted.

The needs of our nation should not be neglected in our eternal watch over our rights. Instead, our rights should shape how (and sometimes if) we should seek certain desires of ours. In seeking security, we should do so knowing that our freedoms are not negotiable. The law, though is, and it should be shaped to suit the public it serves.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at May 28, 2006 1:36 AM
Comment #152062

Stephen, the 1st Amendment is under attack. The Executive and the Courts are demanding journalists memos, notes, and sources and threatening their ability to develop intel on government abuse and abrogation of the Constitution. And frankly, the 1st Amendment has been losing ground since WaterGate in small bits and pieces, but, since Bush came in, there have been giant steps, from planting political agents as journalists in the Press briefing room, to journalist intimidation and imprisonment for not revealing sources.

With the packing of the courts in favor of ever more extensive Executive Power reach, how much longer do you think the 1st Amendment is going to hold up? The need for the 2nd Amendment is not that far off, when the Executive has acquired silencing power through intimidation and court backed power plays of imprisoning journalists.

Imprisoning journalists! In America, for not revealing their sources. I still can’t believe it. It’s a nightmare I keep hoping to wake up from.

And don’t look to Congress to save the day. The Executive has already established the precedent of Signing Statements in which the Executive reinterprets Congressional law to suit its own power needs. Combined with the latest act of the Executive branch and Courts defending the right to invade Congressional Offices for “just cause”, the chilling effect on Congress has already made created an uproar. But, uproar or not, the Executive will win this precedent because it is backed by the legality of a Court Approved search warrant. Never mind the fact that it was a year after the crime. Never mind the fact that the DOJ has overwhelming evidence to convict dating back a year ago.

So, you have a circuit court, and courts of appeals being packed by conservative judges who believe checks and balances mean little in times of national security threat, you have an executive capable of maintaining decades worth of national security breach, and you have the Executive rendering impotent the Congress to check and balance the Executive. Sounds like 1937 and 1938 Nazi Germany to me with some variations on a theme.

Posted by: David R. Remer at May 28, 2006 2:34 AM
Comment #152067

Sicilian Eagle,

Oh, this is going to be so fun. I hardly know where to begin…

The sad part about your piece is that there are people out there who believe this crap.

This type of hysteria is also counter-productive to your (collective) efforts to remove anyone from power becasu you guys just can’t get a story straight.Check out your college American Pundit’s piece below on that nut job Phelps ot John Travellini’s breathless announcement on this side last week that Rove was indicted.

Collective,your credibility has been impeached and you guys now are a caricture of yourselves……. myth is taken for reality by you guys and the fantasy of the left is well,just that… a poppycock.

My, it must be so nice to be so plugged into the complete works of the Republican party strategists and operative, such as you seem to claim to be. Where do you find the time? I’m not sure what is more humourous; the fact that most Republicans have their heads so far up their elected charlatans’ collective asses that they just see brown, or that everything the Democrats disagree with is just a load of dreck.

Well, I hate to break it to you, smiley, but I think you’ll find equally intelligent people on both sides of the aisle. The problem is where they stand: Republicans are about a uniform and an old occult symbol away from being the National Socialist party of WWII Germany. These clowns have stomped on more things that most Americans have taken for granted as being sacrosanct than any group I’ve seen yet in the US. It’s actually quite frightening. Yet, conservatives such as yourself just get online. It would be amusing if it wasn’t so seriously damaging to the nation.

Myth: The Mike Hayden deal: This guy got the job because he is the hands down most qualified.Instead you see a sinister plot.This guy is a patriot who has served his country admirably yet you shit all over him.Your contention that the uniform precludes him from service is ludicrous. All that this sort of stuff does on your part is further the hypocricy of your thought.He was confirmed by the other “check” to your “balance”…a Senate Confirmation committee.Since you don’t like the result,you talk coup.Bullshit
Most qualified? According to whom? Does this man have any experience at all with human intelligence? No, not likely. Does he have the slightest inkling of how to run an intelligence organization that receives severe oversight from a civilian body? Nope. Not just nope, but hell nope. Does this man understand the finely balanced points of how to not overstep the bounds of said organization by following the Constitution and the charter of whatever organization he came from and how to do the job that is proscribed by that charter? I think not.

He is a military man, and the only people that question him is the Executive Branch. He doesn’t have the faintest fecking clue about how to do things in this manner. You could pull someone from the FBI to do this job much more sanely and properly. Why this man? Because he’s another crony like so many other Bush cronies, and he will do as he is told to do, just like the other fecking Nazi goosesteppers that have been appointed recently.

Myth #2. In United States vs. Nixon, executive priviledge during a CRIMINAL investigation was shot down in flames. Here the issue is a legitimate question that ultimately should be decided by the Supreme Court… does the holding apply to a CRIMINAL investigation in the legislative branch as well?
Executive privelege wasn’t designed for this, and you fecking well know it. Executive privelege was designed to withold, for a time, sensitive materials that could seriously jeapordize national security or the rights of a citizen or organization for legal reasons. It is most certainly NOT in place to shield yourself from poltical embarassment because you screwed up. But that’s precisely what Bush and Co. do. They invoke EP more times than Paris Hilton sees a gynecologist for venereal disease checks. This isn’t all that sensitive, is it? Nope. The misuse of EP in this administration is hideous, and it sets so horrible a precedence that it is almost too dangerous to allow continuation without some oversight by a select bipartisan commission from Congress.
Myth #3 The issue of NSA wiretapping withing US borders…name me ONE American who has had his right violated…one….I dare you.
I dare you to name one that hasn’t. You can’t, because you don’t have access to the files, and neither does anyone else here. You’re just an dumbass Republican stooge. You on Rove’s payroll or something? How about learning to maintain a simple debate before coming back here? So how do you know no one’s right weren’t violated. Do you understand the charter at all for the NSA? Let’s make this easy for you.

The NSA was designated for one purpose: to monitor signals intelligence in order to detect potential threats against the United States. That’s it. Tapping a phone call originating in Istanbul to, say, Karachi would be just fine. Tapping a phone call originating from Islamabad to Denver would be OK, provided that there was some justification, and that justification has to be approved by a Judge, because now you are now listening to a private conversation involving an American. Tapping a phone call originating in the US by two Americans is nearly never allowed unless there is reason to suspect that there is national security implications in this conversation.

As I understand the Intelligence Oversight rules, they can start a surveillance provided that Congress is notified within a certain period of time. This involves covert activities as well as these other sticky matters like monitoring a citizen’s activities.

You guys are pathetic.You see shadows and conspiracy around every corner.You piss and moan about a stolen election.You give zero support to our troops fighting to protect our nation chosing instead to send messages to the enemy that we are a nation torn from within.
Do you really believe the bullshit you are spewing, or is this just something else you’re told to say on liberal blogs by the ratfucks that pay you? I’d be curious to know.
If a conspiracy were to happen,it would be from the left,not the right.Thankfully,that will never happen because the brainpower to pull off such a stunt is non-existent on that side.
This is so funny that it marginalizes you without any help. It’s retarded, however, I’m going to direct you to a place where you can see about a coup that nearly did happen in the US. It was planned by the American Legion, and was directed against Roosevelt. This isn’t merely a “conspiracy theory”. It is from the Congressional Record! Want to dispute this? No, I don’t believe you will. Read all about it, if you can read, that is. Given what you say, I doubt you comprehend much, and your grammar and spelling is atrocious anyway. Here is the link:

Why don’t you guys move over and play pocket pool and let us big guys do the work.


Because dumbshits like you make debating conservatives about as easy as shooting fish in a barrel. Bring some better ammunition next time, bozo. Posted by: joshuacrime at May 28, 2006 3:11 AM
Comment #152073


I am neither a dumbshit nor a bozo,nor a dumbass stooge,nor do any ratfucks pay me.

All writers here on Watchblog volunteer their time.

Even those on the Republican side.

Talk like that cheapens your arguement and I doubt that this is the forum for that type of talk.The top banner says critique the message,not the messanger.

If you want to debate the issue,fine.Try to keep it civil.

1.Your post,beside being a personal attack, was a rant.

2.I suggest you research Mike Hayden’s background a bit .Virtually every Senator on the Senate Intelligence Committee knows of and respects Hayden….on both sides of the aisle.The 14-3 vote in this politicial climate shows that,I think.
He has vast experience in intelligence.He cut his teeth in the business in of the toughest postings in the intelligence field.Under his direction,the NSA has picked much valuable intelligence that led to the capture of many many enemies of the country.Because he wears a uniform is the major reason for your gripe.
It’s not mine.
The man is an American patriot.

2.Have you read US vs.Nixon?
I suggets you do.
Every first year law school student has.
In the holding,the Supreme Court held that executive priviledge is not extended to crimal investigations.
Here,the exucutive department,thru the Justice Department,a branch of the executive department,is saying that l”egislative priviledge” should also not be extended to criminal investigations,and the Supreme Court will decide the issue ultimately.
This has nothing do do with abuse of power by the executive department.

3.I don’t have to prove a negative.You folks made the allegation of NSA abuse here ,now prove it.
That’s the way the justice system works…unless you want to change that too.
Please post for me a single…of NSA wiretapping abuse involving a US citizen calling another US citizen.One.

I thought the comment that we are one symbol and a uniform way odd.

Fascism comes from the Italian word “facio” which refers to the piece of hay that the field workers tied when they worked in the fields.

It originally was a socialist concept….a workers concept.Once in power,after they marched on Rome,they began eleminating all opposition and this absolute power,started by the left wing socialists,then mutated into “fascism” as we know it today.

I suggest that you realize that a lot of people in this country are fair,honest,hard-working people who love this country but belong to an opposing viewpoint that you espouse.

Intelligent debate,not vitrol,not talk of revolution is the key here.We have a system called the electoral process where every so often people get to vote for their elected representatives.You will get your chance (again) in November to elect those that espouse your philosophy.Unless,of course,you feel that the American people are incapable of choosing those folks.Maybe you would want to choose for them.If so,refer to the original defination of fasicsm above for further enlightenment.

Then go back and read my post again.

Posted by: sicilianeagle at May 28, 2006 6:55 AM
Comment #152077

Folks like you might love his boldness, but the rest of us loath his arrogance.

General Hayden is a man whose agency is under investigation for an alleged illegal use of covert power. He is also an ardent apologist for the president. Between the two, I think its safe to say we have the likelihood of more Bush style disasters.

When politics takes over things like intelligence, the product suffers. When it becomes more important that a certain truth get to the president than whatever is truly out there, policy suffers. When everything they thought they knew turns out to be off track, we suffer, as we did in New York, DC and Pennsylvania on 9/11, and now in Iraq.

The problem with 9/11 wasn’t insufficient power to act, but insufficient information to act with. It was also an event so unlikely in people’s minds that they did not think it could actually come to pass.

This administration, unfortunately, likes not being told certain information. It would prefer to mount any number of spying programs of questionable if not absent legality than bulk up the non-sexy security at our nation’s points of vulnerability. It would rather the liberals who don’t have the right point of view in their intelligence agencies shut up, and not disturb their presentation of The Truth, even as their partisan assessments fly off the mark time and again. It wants vindication, not indication as to where its going. You should go back and read my earlier comment about cognitive locking, because that is what’s happening here.

This administration encourages the kind of weakness in government that lead to many of the disasters we’ve seen in Bush’s tenure: cronyism, corruption, selective use of information that needs to be considered in whole, politicizing of the process of verifying the quality of information, among other things.

Putting Hayden in charge here not only shows how lightly he takes people’s concerns, but how intent he is on doing things his way, even as it sets the stage for further disasters, and further demonstrates to the American people that he neither wants to address their concerns, nor dispel them.

That’s not a healthy approach to take in a Democracy, especially if your party wants to keep getting jobs from these particular employers.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at May 28, 2006 8:24 AM
Comment #152078

In case anyone has trouble keeping up with all the scandles and how they are all related… check out this graphic (NY Times - Sunday)

NY Times

Wow - what a tangled web they wove!

Posted by: tony at May 28, 2006 8:35 AM
Comment #152085

Do yourself a favor and lay off the insults. We’re right enough on objective grounds not to need such verbal abuse in our arsenal of techniques against our opponents.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at May 28, 2006 8:55 AM
Comment #152087


Keep on writing! Great posts.

Posted by: Ilsa at May 28, 2006 9:11 AM
Comment #152089


A coup,huh? In other words, more than 50% of the VOTING American public are idiots and traitors? We didn’t know what we were doing in 2004 (or 2000 for that matter)? Just because we don’t agree with your view of how the country should be run or who should run it, we’re the fools? Coups are usually by military overthrow, not an electoral process. If the way the “right” sees things is the majority postition, then don’t you think that we would view it are a victory of morals and values? Now if you guys are so right….er, correct….then prove it in November. No bloodshed, no military takeover, just voters doing thier consitutional duty. That is not a coup - that’s democracy.

Posted by: Ilsa at May 28, 2006 9:21 AM
Comment #152090
I suggest that you realize that a lot of people in this country are fair,honest,hard-working people who love this country but belong to an opposing viewpoint that you espouse.

I suggest the same for you.

Posted by: womanmarine at May 28, 2006 9:26 AM
Comment #152092

If (or when) the coup does happen, I will certainly be happy to stand with the red staters. The blue staters are effeminate elitists—all talk and no action. It won’t be close…

Posted by: nikkolai at May 28, 2006 9:27 AM
Comment #152101

Bush has got to be one of the scariest presidents in modern history…at least Nixon redeemed himself thru environmental laws…

What is perhaps even more scary is that the people of the U.S. are sleeping…they are letting our Constitution be violated on a consistent basis by the person serving in the highest elective office in our country…but they were more incensed by someone lying about a consesual sex act..where is the critical thinking? Where is the outrage? Where are the huge and regular demonstrations?

The people have let themselves be told how to think and how to act…

Bush challenges hundreds of laws President cites powers of his office By Charlie Savage, Globe Staff | April 30, 2006

WASHINGTON — President Bush has quietly claimed the authority to disobey more than 750 laws enacted since he took office, asserting that he has the power to set aside any statute passed by Congress when it conflicts with his interpretation of the Constitution.

Among the laws Bush said he can ignore are military rules and regulations, affirmative-action provisions, requirements that Congress be told about immigration services problems, ”whistle-blower” protections for nuclear regulatory officials, and safeguards against political interference in federally funded research.

Legal scholars say the scope and aggression of Bush’s assertions that he can bypass laws represent a concerted effort to expand his power at the expense of Congress, upsetting the balance between the branches of government. The Constitution is clear in assigning to Congress the power to write the laws and to the president a duty “to take care that the laws be faithfully executed.” Bush, however, has repeatedly declared that he does not need to “execute” a law he believes is unconstitutional.

Posted by: Lynne at May 28, 2006 10:03 AM
Comment #152109


I don’t think Hayden is arrogant at all.I presume you watched the confirmation hearings…I did.He is a profesional,that’s it.

As for him being an apologist for the president,then everyone in the administration must be an apologist then,right?

Flawed thinking.

I think that an apologist is,according to you,someone who opposes how You and the liberals think,correct?

9/11 came about because of a complete lack of coordination in all the intelligence community…which started in 1974 when the Church Committee gutted the intelligence community and went right on thru the Clityon administration.Clinton’s watch ended 9 months before 9/ nmust have forgotten that.

The Bush administration has posted 750 signing letters since in office.This beats the combines 600 of all previous presidents.These signing statements,reasearched thru the office of the vice president,are perfectly legal.
Of course,the left will howl that this is yet another example of insolence but in reality THIS president wants to make sure that the Congress doesn’t ursurp its power.Not one sintilla is unconstitutional.

Not necessary…I try to engage on a soewhat intellectual level,but honestly,when someone starts out a post with obsenities and pesonal attacks,it reflects on you (collectively)

Posted by: sicilianeagle at May 28, 2006 10:42 AM
Comment #152120

The problem with the wrong wing isn’t that they control all three branches of government, it’s that they’re so freakin’ inept at actually doing the job of governing.

The wrong wing is VERY good at propaganda. Over the last twenty years, the wrong wing has been so good at at smearing the left (“John Kerry didn’t really earn his medals”, “John McCain has an illegitimate black daughter”,”Iraq was involved with 9-11”, “Al Gore says he invented the Internet”, “Hillary Clinton is a criminal”, “Bill Clinton is a murderer”, “Social Security must be destroyed in order to save it”, “Huge budget deficits are all the liberals’ fault”, “9-11 is all Clinton’s fault”, “liberals are just haters”, “liberals are socialists”, “liberals are communists”, “liberals are anti-christians”, “liberals are immoral”, “liberals hate America”, and “liberals are traitors”) that the word liberal has become a dirty word. I’ve heard every one of those charges here in Watchblog, by the way. Yep, the wrong wing is very good at attacking the left.

What they AREN’T good at, or even very interested in, is actually governing. That’s the problem. When your ideology says that government is the problem, and you finally get into power, you have little or no idea how to actually do the job of governing. So you do a really shitty job of defending and protecting the citizens of this country. You ignore a growing number of warnings of a terrorist attack, and when it happens, you invade a country that had nothing to do with the attack and that posed no direct threat to this country. You strain relations with some of our closest allies. You bungle the federal response to a major hurricane. You cut taxes for the wealthy and drive up the deficit to epic proportions. You claim a phony crisis in Social Security and propose a “solution” that destroys what it’s supposed to save, and would drive up the deficit even further. You try to use the power of the federal gov’t to “save” a woman who has in fact been brain-dead for years, but ignore the plight of the thousands of children in this country who live below the poverty line.

But they’re very good at placing the blame.

Posted by: ElliottBay at May 28, 2006 12:00 PM
Comment #152145

It remains to be seen whether or not the people are able to vote out the Republicans in sufficient numbers to overcome the probable election fraud and voter suppression. If congress changes hands will they burn the Riechstag? If either house starts investigating, people will go to prison. Wounded and cornered beast are the most dangerious.That will be the time to stand up ,right or left,as Americans.

Posted by: BillS at May 28, 2006 12:57 PM
Comment #152155


THIS president wants to make sure that the Congress doesn’t ursurp its power.Not one sintilla is unconstitutional.

GWB IS usurping Congressional “power”…Congress, under our Constitution makes the laws, the Executive branch (Bush & his cronies) are to enforce the laws, and the Courts are to interpret the law…Bush is attempting to do all three.

Posted by: Lynne at May 28, 2006 1:28 PM
Comment #152162

I don’t understand why everyone is so worried.
My brown shirt will be back from the cleaners on Wed.
Unless,someone is holding a gun to your head,no one can MAKE you give up freedoms.
If you volunteer to however……

Posted by: jblym at May 28, 2006 1:50 PM
Comment #152178

Elliot Bay

I suppose there is an equally as long list
out there about Republicians too,don’t you think?

Tell you what..pick the one issue that irritates you the most and we’ll thrash it out…right here in “enemy” territory..and we’ll see how many names I am called.

This thread is a good one to start:look above and see what I have already been called today.

I will talk issues,but sooner or later even you get personal,my friend.I called Murtha a jerk on the other side,and you responded by calling me a jerk instead of arguing the case on the merits.Murtha is fair game….Bush and Cheney are called war criminals and fascists here all the time.

You responded not by critiquing the message,rather the messanger.

ps. You sure Gore didn’t invent the internet?

Posted by: sicilianeagle at May 28, 2006 2:35 PM
Comment #152179

joshuacrime, your name calling clearly violates our policy, Critique the Message, Not the Messenger. Comply, or lose your comment privilege here. This will be your only warning.

Posted by: WatchBlog Managing Editor at May 28, 2006 2:39 PM
Comment #152239

It was an elected government that made Caesar dictator for life, and thereby sent Rome on the road to becoming an empire. Elections gave Hitler the reins of power, and gave many other tinpot dictators their first foothold on power. You don’t have to work violently to subvert a democracy. All you have to do is break the system in the right places (or the wrong ones, if you will.)

The trouble is, with all the precedents and violation’s Bush has engaged in, others may finish taking to themselves the power he started gathering, and break the remnants of the civil liberties and freedoms he left intact. After all Julius Caesar wasn’t the first emperor, his successor was.

You’d be happy to stand with anybody in a overthrow of our elected government? I might be an effeminate elitist according to you, but you won’t catch me being pleased at the prospect of committing treason.

I didn’t watch the confirmation hearings, but his actions spoke far greater volumes. He’s cooperated in possibly illegal surveillance of Americans and pushed the administration line on their legality.

When I use the word apologist, it’s to indicate that the person is taking a line devoid of anything but the adminstration’s message. It’s the mindless repetition of the talking points.

It doesn’t matter that he’s not liberal. What matters is that despite all the problems, these people are still acting like everything’s as it should be. They’re not acknowledging the general (not merely liberal) discontent with their policies. What matters is that I keep on getting arguments that others have debunked and shot down.

Elements of the aftermath of the Church Committee might have had something to do with the events of 9/11, but that doesn’t excuse those who acted or failed to act in the aftermath of that committee’s reforms. That means at least four Republican presidents, and a Republican dominated Legislature that had the better part of the decade before it to deal with things.

I have not forgotten that Clinton was president, and that he was in charge of this. Thing there is, though, that I can fairly say he was doing something to address that terrorist threat, rather than putting it on the back burner like the Rogue State-obsessed Bush did. We can point to accounts like Richard Clarke’s on the subject. Other accounts paint a less flattering picture, one that I’m quite willing to entertain as true. That’s the real world for you.

Regardless of who fell down on the job, the facts remain that much of 9/11 could only occur because of bureaucratic blindspots and assumptions that minimized the appearance of the threat and gave the terrorists their opportunities to strike. It’s that I’m criticizing regarding, Republicans and Democrats getting hit if they stray into the field of fire.

My more general point, though, was directed at this adminstration, which has shown itself to be skilled at ignoring inconvenient problems until they become major catastrophes and embarrassments.

On the subject of signing statements, this is a country built on the rule of law. His role, as determined by the law of the land, is to faithfully execute the law the legislature passes, and to abide by the rulings of the court on its interpretation. If he doesn’t like that or agree with it, tough tomatoes. It’s not his job to be a one man court system or legislature.

I genuinely cannot understand how you cannot see how disturbing such behavior in a president is. He is part of a government, not the whole affair. The real question here is whether this president can take no for an answer when it’s the constitution that’s denying him his wishes.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at May 28, 2006 6:35 PM
Comment #152240

Oh, by the way, on the subject of the internet, Gore actually said he helped to create it, which is true. He voted with others to begin the conversion of the Defense oriented network into the general purpose institution we know today.

But of course, making fun of him for actually helping to create our prosperous economy might have backfired. Aren’t heavily repeated lies convenient?

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at May 28, 2006 6:40 PM
Comment #152291

the rep. spending is so out of control!! Did you know they had to build a new clock to monitor the deficit. Yes the rep brook the clock and they had to add another # two more years maybe they should add two!!!!

Posted by: Dan at May 28, 2006 10:55 PM
Comment #152293


When and/or if the Dems take power and perform badly, I’ll be all over their asses too - I’m not discriminatory. What irritates me the most about the those in power now is, as I have said several times, their hypocricy.

And when you START (and title) a post on Memorial Day weekend, of all weekends, by calling a decorated veteran “a jerk”, you deserve what happens.

Posted by: ElliottBay at May 28, 2006 11:05 PM
Comment #152366


“Why don’t you guys move over and play pocket pool and let us big guys do the work.”

Tell you what; when you step away from the computer, enlist and serve, then you can lump yourself in with the “big guys doing the work.”

Until then, you’re just a small guy behind a screen, and all your manly screeds have a little yellow elephant hovering in the lower right-hand corner of my monitor.

Posted by: Arr-squared at May 29, 2006 9:15 AM
Comment #152514

My nam vet uncle told me that the tough talkers are usually the most scared sort of a nervous reaction to stress.

Posted by: Tom at May 29, 2006 9:24 PM
Comment #152552

Hmmm, where I come from, if you’re insulted you give back as good as you get. Seems to me that some people deserve that more than others, but that’s all right. All we have here is a matter of targets. You can belittle an entire group of people, just not one. Silly.

Oh well, I thought this place had potential. My bad. Good luck.

Posted by: joshuacrime at May 30, 2006 12:11 AM
Comment #152599


fasces is the root word for Fascist- and was the bundle of rods used a symbol of power by someone wh was elected to an office with imperium in the Roman Republic. Depending upon how much imperium you had, lictors carried bundles of rods (witin the traditional bounds of the city) symbolizing the officer’s legal authority to chastise and correct. Outside of Rome’s boundary, axes were inserted into the bundle, symbolizing the authority of the oficer to execute in addition to chastisement.

These bundles became a symbol of republics (the image is carved to either side of the speaker’s rostra in the house of representatives) NOT socialism- and they never were- unless the USA was a socialist state from the 1850s. Mussolini took the symbol as representative of the great Roman Empire that he hoped to re-create- not as a socialist. Assertions to the contrary are laughable.

Also, facism was NEVER socialist in the left-wing / liberal sense. Rather they were a corporatist attempt by the right to co-opt the appeal that workers’ parties had among the working classes. Neither Mussolini’s Fascists nor Germany’s Natioanal Socialists were EVER left-wing; they were, from their inception, radical reactionary right-wingers. The statement made above that imples that facism had its roots in extreme left politics is historically untenable and monumentally distorting and misleading.

But, how would I know? I just study this stuff for a living…

Posted by: jimbabwe at May 30, 2006 10:34 AM
Comment #152618


Study harder.My defination is taught in Italian schools and universites.

From Wikipedia:

Many diverse regimes have self-identified as fascist, and defining fascism has proved complicated and contentious. Historians, political scientists, and other scholars have engaged in long and furious debates concerning the exact nature of fascism and its core tenets. Since the 1990s, however, there has been a growing move toward some rough consensus reflected in the work of Payne, Eatwell, Griffin, and Paxton. See Fascism and ideology.

The word “fascism” comes from fascio (plural: fasci), which may mean “bundle,” as in a political or militant group or a nation, but also from the fasces (rods bundled around an axe), which were an ancient Roman symbol of the authority of magistrates. The Italian Fascisti were also known as Black Shirts for their style of uniform incorporating a black shirt (See Also: political colour).

Posted by: sicilianeagle at May 30, 2006 12:05 PM
Comment #152673

Great article, Rowan.
And great posts, Lefties.
Even joshuacrime’s replies were great, if one ignored the personally insulting invective toward the Sic Eagle. I think it’s too bad joshua left us so soon, rather than just learn to critique the message rather than the messenger. :^/

Posted by: Adrienne at May 30, 2006 2:53 PM
Comment #152985

THE LIBERAL SOLUTION-Disband the military Put them in jail but tell them you love them.Allow usama bin-laden to sue the united states for his bad living conditions.Cut saddam loose let him take control of iraq.Open our borders to whome ever wants to come to the united states.Provide them with housing,medical care,and a mexican flag.Demesticly -Raise taxes on all legal citizens and give that money to illegals.Reward child molesters for they cant help them selves.Give all liberal media and liberal judges a raise in salary.Come on dems take control of the senate congress and the white house i cant wait to be forced to wear a turban.

Posted by: lookingout at May 31, 2006 12:53 PM
Comment #153004

THE CONSERVATIVE SOLUTION-Make up stuff about liberals, post it liberally on blogs, and hope that others believe it.

Posted by: outlooking at May 31, 2006 1:51 PM
Comment #153020

outlooking for places to hide.

Posted by: lookingout at May 31, 2006 2:22 PM
Comment #153060

lookingout for places to troll.

Posted by: outlooking at May 31, 2006 3:54 PM
Post a comment