Democrats & Liberals Archives

McClellan: Inside the Bush Propaganda Machine

Scott McClellan, former White House press secretary for George W. Bush has a book coming out on Monday. Excerpts were published on the web today (link). In it, McClellan says that Bush, essentially, lied.

From 2003 to 2006, McClellan was a huge supporter and firm defender of the Bush administration. He was part of the inner circle and was the condescending face to Bush's "we know better than you" administration. Now he comes out with a memoir essentially saying that he lied, as part of his job, to the American people.

Although the book comes out on Monday, some of the available quotable excerpts:
"Rove, Libby, and possibly Vice-President Cheney allowed me, even encouraged me, to repeat a lie"

"..the Iraq war was not necessary."

"The perception of this catastrophe (Katrina) was made worse by previous decisions President Bush had made, including, first and foremost, the failure to be open and forthright on Iraq and rushing to war with inadequate planning and preparation for its aftermath."

"it was all about manipulating sources of public opinion to the president's advantage"

For McClellan, when he finally admits his own assertions from the podium turned out to be “badly misguided.", i guess writing this book is sort of therapy.

Cue the denial machine...

Posted by john trevisani at May 28, 2008 8:37 AM
Comments
Comment #253792

All the “tell all” books do not absolve the authors of their moral turpitude…too many books, too much immorality, absolutely no one taking any responsibility.

Posted by: Rachel at May 28, 2008 9:27 AM
Comment #253793

john t, that’s my take. McClellan, according to those not blind believers in the Messiah Bush, say he is a very decent individual. The book serves one obvious purpose. Make money. It may be nothing more in motive to it than that. But, if he is a decent guy, he may well be trying to make amends for his part in what he now considers a deadly and enormously costly administration to our military, our taxpayers, our Constitution, and our trust in our government.

The road back to trust begins with confession and repentance for those actions which violated trust. From what I am hearing on the news channels from those reading excerpts, there is too much defensiveness and not enough confession and repentance. If that is true, then as usual with folks of government, follow the money for the motive.

What I find odd is that there are no revelations yet in the book. The book appears to be McClellan catching up to what the majority of Americans have already understood about the Bush administration for several years now.

Richard Clark is out on the news channels commenting on this book. Clark is a person who spoke truth to power while still in his position of influence. Far more respectable for me, than McClellan coming around to conscience long after his opportunity to speak and possibly make a difference has passed.

Posted by: David R. Remer at May 28, 2008 9:35 AM
Comment #253794

David:
i agree, money and only money is the true motivation for this book. In fact, i’ll go a little further to say that i wouldn’t be surprised if McClellan, when pitching the book, was told he would have to come clean about Iraq as a condition for the book.

My comment about therapy is, in no way shape or form, an act of forgiveness. Repentance is only applicable if one seeks to repent; i agree that he’s in it more for the money than repentance.

Richard Clark and Oneill were the ones that put out books of dissent and were vilified by the White House. i don’t see this with McClellan, yet.

Posted by: john trevisani at May 28, 2008 9:53 AM
Comment #253796

He was misled, Congress was misled, the American people were misled, and Cheney has a mojo box. Scott admits that he was the one who was misleading everyone then but now that he’s being paid royalties everything he says is true. And oh yeh, Bush is a nice guy who believes his own lie about his cocaine use and is not really a chimp but pretty smart. He’s just not an intellectual thinker.

Truth? Probably some of it, but in politics everyone has an agenda. I doubt Scott’s is purely altruistic. And the bombastic stuff has to be there or the publisher doesn’t publish.

I think I will read this book, but only after it gets to my local library or I can borrow a copy from a friend. That way I don’t feel like I paid him.

Posted by: George in SC at May 28, 2008 10:03 AM
Comment #253800

I still don’t get it I suppose.

He is *STILL* not saying that he knew (or even that Bush/Cheney) knew that they were telling lies at the time, only that they were wrong using the benefit of hindsight. And yes we had this debate the last time his publishers put out this exact same thing.

Can someone please point out where McClellan states that Bush or Cheney knowingly told him to lie or told him to say anything that they knew were lies at the time?

Posted by: Rhinehold at May 28, 2008 11:02 AM
Comment #253801

BTW, ‘We know better’? Isn’t this mindset of all politicians, especially the Democratic Party and Obmaa?

Posted by: Rhinehold at May 28, 2008 11:04 AM
Comment #253802


There is really no need for the administration to villify McClellan. They got away with it. Bush, Cheney and their cronies are laughing in the faces of the American people. They are absconding with hundreds of billions and indebted us to the tune of trillions.

How have they been able to get away with being the most corrupt administration in history? That is an easy question to answer. The politicians of the so called opposition are every bit as corrupt as the Republicans. Our entire elected government has been corruped by the corporate power brokers.

We Democrats bent over backwards to defend our politicians and their (we are out of power and there is nothing we can do) excuses.

TRUTH = What our politicians are paid to propagandize as truth.

JUSTICE = What ever the corporate power structure deems is just. Within this structure, the law is an inconvience that is easily shoved to the side in the intrests of profit. There are now finer examples of this than the Iraq War and the 20 to 30 million illegal immigrants and their employers.

THE AMERICAN WAY = Corruption and the destruction of free enterprise at the hands of our masters and their corporate instruments of control.

The liberals and the conservatives are allies in their efforts to pacify and control the American people, the conquest of the world, and their desire to create and control a ONE WORLD GOVERNMENT. While there are differences in their means, there is no difference in their desire to control on behalf of their masters.

Posted by: jlw at May 28, 2008 11:12 AM
Comment #253807

I think it’s incredible that he came out and said this. Not that I think his motivations are entirely genuine, but … it’s pretty incredible nevertheless.

BTW, ‘We know better’? Isn’t this mindset of all politicians, especially the Democratic Party and Obmaa?

Rhinehold, it kind of blows me away that you would characterize this as business as usual. It’s pretty clear this was a dismal administration that simply wasn’t being honest with the public in a manner you would expect from even a garden variety politician. Bush and Co did a poor job, and deceived people in a unacceptable way. It’s clear. End of story. This isn’t saying that all Republicans are like this, btw. I really believe that Bush was a special case, though I do think the neo-con philosophy helped him.

Posted by: Max at May 28, 2008 1:22 PM
Comment #253813

Good grief people, get a grip. I can’t even keep count of all the political expose that have been published in the past five or ten years blasting officials of both parties.

Books like these are merely fodder for the sheep, or is that cows that eat fodder?

We’re still getting books supposedly revealing new “facts” about Roosevelt, Truman, Reagan, hell, even Washington and Jefferson. Read for enjoyment if you must, but don’t be sucked into the latest attempt to sell you a new book of revelation.

I enjoy historical novels that mix real names with fictional accounts of history.

All this crap about forgiveness and repentance is just a thinly veiled excuse by some to lend credence to what is merely a money-making venture.

Posted by: Jim M at May 28, 2008 3:09 PM
Comment #253821

I really don’t know how a person would “make amends” for lies that ended up getting us into a war. Isn’t “make amends” an AA terminology? If he got a big enough advance, he would have to include something sensational, that will help sell the book. My next modern read is probably going to be Arianna’s Right is Wrong.

Posted by: ohrealy at May 28, 2008 4:18 PM
Comment #253825

More excerpts:
- Bush “convinces himself to believe what suits his needs at the moment,” McClellan writes.

- President Bush relied on an aggressive “political propaganda campaign” instead of the truth to sell the Iraq war, and that the decision to invade pushed Bush’s presidency “terribly off course.”

- “(The Bush White House made )a decision to turn away from candor and honesty when those qualities were most needed”

- “The Iraq war was not necessary…Waging an unnecessary war is a grave mistake.”

- The way Bush managed the Iraq issue “almost guaranteed that the use of force would become the only feasible option.”

- “In the permanent campaign era, it was all about manipulating sources of public opinion to the president’s advantage,”

And now for the WH response (spoiler alert, Lions eat their young)
Perino: “Scott, we now know, is disgruntled about his experience at the White House,” she said. “For those of us who fully supported him, before, during and after he was press secretary, we are puzzled. It is sad - this is not the Scott we knew.”

“For him to do this now strikes me as self-serving, disingenuous and unprofessional,” Fran Townsend, former head of the White House-based counterterrorism office

“If he had these moral qualms, he should have spoken up about them. And frankly I don’t remember him speaking up about these things. I don’t remember a single word.” - Karl Rove

Posted by: john trevisani at May 28, 2008 4:53 PM
Comment #253826

Rhinehold asked: “Can someone please point out where McClellan states that Bush or Cheney knowingly told him to lie or told him to say anything that they knew were lies”

Where McClellan discusses the Valerie Plame incident, in which Rove, Cheney and others LIED directly to his face saying they had no involvement in the outing of her CIA identity and capacity.

As for Iraq, McClellan says it was an unnecessary war, and makes the case based on the Administration’s refusal to hear and pursue validation of counsel and analysis on both sides of the WMD issue offered them. Contrary to the Bush Administrations continuing lies on this topic, there were sources within the intelligence community raising doubts about whether Iraq STILL had WMD.

No credible sources in the intelligence community at that time had any evidence of nuclear or intercontinental ballistic capability, justifying Cheney’s and Bush’s public implications and insinuations that Saddam Hussein posed a threat to our homeland with nuclear devices then or in the near future.

Then there is the embarrassing CIA Fact Books predating the invasion of Iraq in public libraries across our country which CLEARLY defined Iraq as a very factionalized nation with potential warring internal religious and cultural groups held together and in relative peace only by the Authoritarian control of the Iraqi government. RED FLAG - RED FLAG - RED FLAG!!!! For all to see who cared to read what was public information of the time.

We are talking CIA Fact Books 2001 and 2002 here, which tells us in no equivocal terms, what the CIA was ready and willing to advise, and which the Bush Administration DID NOT WANT TO HEAR regarding the consequences of and potential outcome of an invasion of Iraq.

Posted by: David R. Remer at May 28, 2008 5:02 PM
Comment #253832

Business as usual with the Neo-Cons - they either:

1 - pooh-pooh the issue by saying “politicians are all that way” (unless it’s a liberal and then we see their ‘righteous indignation’);

2 - they pretend innocence and ignorance (remember Gonzales’ testimony where he never remembered anything about any of the fired attorneys general?)

3 - they shoot the messenger (as we can see above), in which case it becomes “the guy’s a turncoat and therefore nothing he says can be considered factual”

Posted by: Glenn Contrarian at May 28, 2008 5:46 PM
Comment #253838

Liberal Media! Liberal Media? I can’t stand it. It’s too hilarious. Even in the book he’s still lying (maybe not as much as before).

Posted by: Stephen Hines at May 28, 2008 8:52 PM
Comment #253848

Looks like His Dad wrote a book ALSO! Quote GULFPORT, Miss. - (KRT) - The father of the White House press secretary claims in his upcoming book, “Blood, Money & Power: How L.B.J. Killed J.F.K.,” that former President Lyndon B. Johnson was behind the assassination of President John F. Kennedy.

Barr McClellan, father of White House press secretary Scott McClellan and Food and Drug Administration Commissioner Mark McClellan, is preparing for a Sept. 30 release of a 480-page book by Hannover House that offers photographs, copies of letters, insider interviews and details of fingerprints as proof that Edward A. Clark, the powerful head of Johnson’s private and business legal team and a former ambassador to Australia, led the plan and cover-up for the 1963 assassination in Dallas.

Kennedy was shot and killed while throngs watched his motorcade travel through Dallas on Nov. 22, 1963. Vice President Johnson was sworn in as president shortly after on Air Force One.

“(Johnson) had the motive, opportunity and means,” said McClellan, 63, who was a partner in an Austin law firm that served Johnson. The book, McClellan said in an exclusive interview at his Orange Grove home, is about “(Johnson’s) role in the assassination. He was behind the assassination, how he was and how it all developed.” …

Posted by: Rodney Brown at May 29, 2008 1:03 AM
Comment #253854

Rodney Brown, mental illness truly is a terrible thing, isn’t it? Or is it just plain old grandstanding greed pretending to be demented in proffering conspiracy theories which NO ONE would listen to if his sons were not famous and in the news. Sounds like the whole McClellan family is out to make some bucks on the nightmares America has experienced by their elected choices for office.

Posted by: David R. Remer at May 29, 2008 2:10 AM
Comment #253857

Old man McClellan’s book was published in 2003. He apparently had to resign from the bar to prevent disbarrment over some misconduct. It looks like the book on JFK will be in the bargain bin soon. “confusingly structured, evasively argued, often nonsensical theories” from Amazon. Apparently they are unrelated to former senator McClellan of Arkansas.

Posted by: ohrealy at May 29, 2008 2:44 AM
Comment #253862

Even if the book is 100% untrue. What does that say about who Bush trusts and hires. Why is this in even the news? I’m done defending him.

Posted by: andy at May 29, 2008 5:19 AM
Comment #253873

andy, its in the news because it confirms what a majority of Americans concluded on their own prior to the 2006 elections. That affirmation of voter’s conclusions has selling potential. That’s why it is in the news. The people can draw their own conclusions outside the loop, but, there is a special satisfaction people derive when an insider confirms so many outsider’s conclusions.

Is it all true? Not likely. Is it all false? Very unlikely. Hence, its controversial news making capacity and salable profit potential in one book.

Posted by: David R. Remer at May 29, 2008 8:21 AM
Comment #253874

Jim M, you miss the point entirely. The book confirms what a majority of Americans decided was true already prior to the 2006 elections. That has enormous confirmation power and therefore, selling potential to the public that enjoys having their out of the loop conclusions confirmed by someone on the inside.

In politics, it is what is perceived as true that moves elections. Much of what McClellan says will be proved true, hopefully next year with intensive Congressional investigations. It is unlikely that it is all verifiably true, as this is after all, McClellan’s perception of what was true in hindsight, and that leaves room for some discrepancies with verifiable truth.

Posted by: David R. Remer at May 29, 2008 8:26 AM
Comment #253879

David,

What will the out come of any investigation after the fact actually accomplish?
Does this “tell all” book do more than confirm what we already have seen with our own eyes any way?

Unless an investigation is called for by the Republicans it will be decried as merely a sour grapes, partisan witch hunt, and won’t do anything to change the minds of those that already deny what has happened over the last 7 years.
For those that are already believers, it will be a hollow victory that will merely provide endless fodder for the media for years.

What actually is the point of spending, yet again, tens of millions of dollars to investigate what anyone with any sense at all knows to be true?
So do we tie Bush, Cheney, et al to a chair and dunk them to see if they float?
Does anyone seriously believe that jail time will be a factor at the end of these investigations, or will this just be a “National Enquirer” titillation trail that spends lots of money, and ends up being totally unsatisfying?

Posted by: Rocky at May 29, 2008 10:19 AM
Comment #253881

Re: McClellan I think Rush had it right yesterday. Scott is trying to obtain perpetual pundit status as the tell all insider in a similar vein as Dick Morris. This book and its revelations are all about Scott McClellan and his career, not some altruistic desire on his part to “change the discourse in Washington.” As people are already pointing out on the cable shows if you want to change the tone you don’t write a book like this. And at least Morris waited until Clinton published his memoirs to make his splash; McClellan roasts Bush while he’s still in office.

Re: Iraq I just don’t see how this changes much of anything. 70% of the people already believe it was a mistake. I don’t think the “I told you so” syndrome will last very long.

Fareed Zakaria said a couple of weeks before the war, “I’ll take my chance with change.” But he, Congress and many of the 72% who approved of the war before it began didn’t quite understand the words of Colin Powell: “You are going to be the proud owner of 25 million people. You will own all their hopes, aspirations, and problems. You’ll own it all.” You break it you fix it.

That’s why I’ve continued to support what is now a very unpopular war, and that’s why Congress continues to fund what is now an unpopular war. The decision to do this was made 5 years ago, we took our chance with changing the dynamic in the Middle East, and now we must see it through.

Posted by: George in SC at May 29, 2008 10:21 AM
Comment #253885

“won’t do anything to change the minds of those that already deny what has happened over the last 7 years.
For those that are already believers, it will be a hollow victory that will merely provide endless fodder for the media for years”

The inexcuseable defense of clinton and the continued hatred of him to this day, prove both those points.
What a said little game the two sides are playing.

Posted by: kctim at May 29, 2008 10:30 AM
Comment #253887

kctim,

Right now my giveashit-o-meter is pegged toward the negative.
I am almost to the point where I truly don’t care any more.
Those that live under totalitarian regimes know exactly where they stand in the scheme of things. It’s a dependable oppression.

Perhaps if I can just take the attitude that we are already screwed, and just move on, everything will at least seem better for a while.

Posted by: Rocky at May 29, 2008 11:17 AM
Comment #253890

Same here Rocky.
It really does sometimes seem pointless to care, especially when you know what is coming.
Come Jan. 2009, those who were quiet, will complain and those who complained, will become quiet.

We are already screwed, get what you need now and save what money you can. Its going to get bad, real bad.

Posted by: kctim at May 29, 2008 11:28 AM
Comment #253893

George, kctim:
What you (and Rush) think of McClellan’s motives, has nothing to do with the actual facts in the book.

This book, like every other book by admin officials, had to be vetted through the White House and Intelligence offices for national security. If there was anything factually incorrect it would never have seen the light of day.

Posted by: john trevisani at May 29, 2008 1:10 PM
Comment #253896

Actually John T., I don’t care about his movitves all that much. What I did do though, is agree with Rocky when he said it wouldn’t change the minds of those who deny and will give fodder to those who agree. Just like the books do with clinton.

You guys play a game of believing the worst about your opponents and ignoring the worst about your own and it has led to the political climate and corruption our country now faces.

Posted by: kctim at May 29, 2008 1:27 PM
Comment #253902

John-

There are no facts here to vet to my knowledge (again I haven’t read the book). The story is his opinion as to the motivations and I would hope that the White House wouldn’t censor opinion.

If he thinks Cheney is a “magic man” and has a drawer full of voodoo dolls then he has every right to think that. Be hard to vet it unless you can find the push pins.

Oh, and we’ll get to here from Scott tonight. He’ll be on Olbermann’s show at 8:00.

Posted by: George in SC at May 29, 2008 2:04 PM
Comment #253910


McClellan’s edition is just another so what book. We don’t prosecute presidents, vice presidents, or even former press secretaries for treason. The only interest that the Democratic party has in this information is it’s propaganda potential.

The last thing either of these two parties are intrested in is for truth to prevail and justice applied.

Posted by: jlw at May 29, 2008 5:44 PM
Comment #253911

David R Remer says, “Jim M, you miss the point entirely. The book confirms what a majority of Americans decided was true already prior to the 2006 elections. That has enormous confirmation power and therefore, selling potential to the public that enjoys having their out of the loop conclusions confirmed by someone on the inside.”

Does anyone besides me find this statement at odds with itself? A “majority of Americans” have “out of the loop conclusions”! How can a majority be out of the loop? Methinks David just likes confrontation.

Posted by: Jim M at May 29, 2008 6:08 PM
Comment #253918

Scotty beams ‘em up.

Posted by: Stephen Hines at May 29, 2008 9:03 PM
Comment #253921

Rocky,

Clearly I’m not quite as worn down by the blatant illegality of this administration as you seem to have become. It still shocks, angers and outrages me — to the core of my being. Allow me be to be perfectly clear in what I mean when I say that: Scott McClelland’s book and the revelations he has chosen to reveal should certainly be considered a green light to now go ahead and start impeachment proceedings against Bush and Cheney and their entire administration. Every single one of these people are deserving of jailtime. Period.

If Pelosi was in fact the “San Francisco Liberal” that all the Wingnutters love to claim this woman is, she would never have taken “impeachment off the table.” And if she had not, she would now be fully prepared to go full steam ahead with an impeachment where McClelland could be used as a highly credible witness. But because Pelosi doesn’t actually give a rats ass about the administration’s illegality and dishonesty, nothing is likely to happen following on McClelland’s absolute affirmation of what everyone with a functioning brain in their heads has already figured out long ago: that the President of the United States and all of the President’s Men are now completely, fully, and without a doubt worthy of wearing the labels traitors, criminals and murderers throughout the rest of recorded history.

While it certainly matters that totally bogus “Liberals” such as Ms. Pelosi have neglected to do their job by making sure that justice will be served when an administration is proven to be 100% corrupt and dishonest with the country, it does come as quite a relief that we no longer have to do anything but smirk, laugh and wave a raised middle finger every time the GOP and what remains of their followers wants to keep opening their mouths. And this is true whether they’re variously denying reality, or pushing the thoroughly dishonest Neocon message(s), or expecting that such pathetic gullibility and stupidity somehow deserves to be taken seriously.

In other words, the gig is finally, finally up for the entire lot of these clowns.

Too bad about all the lives that have been lost and ruined, and all the money the country has had stolen and gone into such serious debt for (with foreign nations), however. Because if no one is ever made to go to jail for any of these crimes, I don’t suppose we can ever expect American moral or ecconomic justice to be served, either.

kctim,
To mention the “crimes” of the Clinton impeachment in the same breath as those of the Bush/Cheney Administration is more bloody offensive than you obviously have an ability to grasp.

Posted by: Veritas Vincit at May 29, 2008 9:17 PM
Comment #253925

Veritas,

My point isn’t just about the book. It’s about the tenor of the discourse in this country.

Prosecuting those in this present administration is a complete waste of time and money.

Convicted or not, they will do no jail time so why bother?

Right now there are more pressing matters than an impeachment to attend to, and no I don’t think Congress is capable of doing the multitasking necessary to impeach Bush et al, and take care of the serious problems this country now faces.
Frankly, given the choice, I would prefer that we get the country moving in the right direction again.

Anyone that has been paying the least bit of attention for the last several years knows that there have been issues, and we don’t need a tell all book from McClellan to clue us in.

Even if, and that is still a big if, the Democrats gain a serious majority in Congress, and even if a Democrat is elected President, there is still an uphill battle to mend the polarization that inflicts this country. An impeachment hearing, unless it is initiated and supported by the Republicans, will do nothing to help heal the rift.

Look, I am not a big fan of George Bush, and I do respect your opinion. I am sure that there many in this country that have the same opinion you do.

That said, this country, and this planet, have huge problems. Impeaching Bushco will not solve those problems, worse yet it will be a distraction for years that will take our attention away from other, more pressing matters.

You and I both know what has been going on. I beg to disagree on how to fix it.

Posted by: Rocky at May 29, 2008 10:06 PM
Comment #253929

Jim M, out of the loop means not privy to the discussions and information shared by the inner circle of the White House. Thought that was obvious, but for you, I will be magnanimous and spell it out.

Clear, now? And yes, the majority changed their mind about what was going on within the White House inner circle and expressed that change of mind in the 2006 elections. With only piece meal media coverage of the results of inner circle information and decisions the majority of voters guessed at what the big picture was and didn’t like it, ejecting Republicans wholesale in 2006’s election.

And they aren’t through ejecting Republicans yet: McClellan’s book insures that will be the case this November.

There, hope you appreciate my spelling it out for you. If not, doesn’t matter! It is spelled out for our young and less experienced visitors who may be reading this. And that is a positive. I thank you for giving me the opportunity.

Posted by: David R. Remer at May 29, 2008 10:53 PM
Comment #253930

Rocky:

Prosecuting those in this present administration is a complete waste of time and money.

I strongly disagree. Once it became crystal clear that Nixon had committed crimes, it didn’t take very long at all to move forward with the idea of impeaching him. And that included many members of the Republican Party who had at first defended Nixon. In fact, impeaching Bush and Cheney could actually be a way for the GOP to presently redeem itself in the eyes of Americans. If they demanded that justice be served when crimes such as those we know were committed are being laid so very bare — now even by former loyal members of the Bush Inner Circle — it could help them to regain at least some of the respect they’ve lost from walking in lock-step with this administration for so long a time.


Convicted or not, they will do no jail time so why bother?

Because crimes against humanity must be punished. And jail time should certainly be served.


Right now there are more pressing matters than an impeachment to attend to, and no I don’t think Congress is capable of doing the multitasking necessary to impeach Bush et al, and take care of the serious problems this country now faces.

Nixon was allowed to go free from receiving punishment for his crimes. It was a lapse that has lead directly to the blatant crimes that have been committed by this administration.
It is obviously long past time for America to set a new precedent regarding how presidential corruption, dishonesty, and acts of treason must be dealt with.

Yes, we have a great many pressing problems (thanks mostly to this administration and many of his lock-stepping GOPers), and a new presidential administration and a new session of Congress will soon have to start dealing with them, but we can, and indeed I think we MUST make sure that justice is served after the eight years this country (not to mention Iraq), has just been made to endure.

I can think of nothing that isn’t as fully important as making absolutely sure that we show the next presidential administration, and all of those that are to come in America’s future, that we will simply not allow what Bush and Cheney and their henchmen have done to ever happen to our country again.

Frankly, given the choice, I would prefer that we get the country moving in the right direction again.

I think we can and must do both at the same time. In fact, if there are absolutely no repercussions after what has taken place, I fail to see how we can take the idea of moving forward in the right direction at all seriously.
We should view how we deal with this as a definite priority, and one that cannot simply be ignored.

You and I both know what has been going on.

Yes Rocky, you and I. And also, EVERYBODY else in the country knows what has been going on too. Even those who are still trying to act as though nothing whatsoever is horribly wrong with this leadership knows the truth. They just don’t like having to admit it.

Posted by: Veritas Vincit at May 29, 2008 10:57 PM
Comment #253931

jlw said: “The last thing either of these two parties are intrested in is for truth to prevail and justice applied.”

Truer words have never been spoken here, jlw. Both Parties share the same glass house, elevating the acquisition and preservation of power as the end that subjugates all others. They will only throw stones at each other OUTSIDE that glass house, but the domestic tranquility within their power sharing arrangement remains intact by mutually assured destruction, MAD, or MADness if you will.


I have heard this time and again by Terry McAuliffe, Hillary Clinton, Howard Dean, Mitt Romney, and Huckabee that winning in November against the rival is all that matters. Which directly implies that electing the best candidate to govern, or the issues and needs of the American people take a back seat to winning.

Republicans didn’t care about good governance of America in 2000, they chose a horrible governor to run as their candidate based on his name recognition alone, not his resume or qualifications.

I have seen only two candidates give any indication that would be content to lose if America elects a better candidate for office, Ron Paul and Barack Obama. All the others have made the same claim that their party winning is the end, the goal, the whole enchilada. All else, including the nation and her people are secondary or ancillary considerations to be assessed AFTER winning takes place.

That is the fundamental philosophical flaw in America’s two party system. Qualification for office solving the nation’s problems is not primary, sale ability of the party’s candidate is. Thus an incompetent like GW Bush is chosen as candidate for his name recognition sale ability, and his competence was never even considered in selling him to the public.

Posted by: David R. Remer at May 29, 2008 11:08 PM
Comment #253946

Hey! What happened to that inevitable civil war that was sopposed to be happening in Iraq?

Posted by: scottie1321 at May 30, 2008 3:29 AM
Comment #253952

I have quit posting. I continue to come and read the topic and read some of the responses but then find it tiring. Its the same old thing. A liberal/democratic will come up with a topic and post then the other side will troop out all their lame arguements which are the same over and over and over again. Its like a broken record. There is no new information or challenge here.

With that said I will make a couple of comments.

1) IMPEACH, IMPEACH, IMPEACH-isn’t part of the reason we punish criminals is as a lesson to other people who may be thinking of committing a crime. If Bush and company get away with their immoral and criminal acts we have told any future adminstration that its ok-so do what you want because you won’t beheld accountable.
2) IMO McClellan’s book means nothing. He has not really told us anything that most of us didn’t know before we even went into Iraq. I am still wondering what his purpose was. If he wanted to be a true patriotic American then he would have started screaming loudly and frequently before, during, and after leaving office. He wants to make a buck.
3) We need to get out of Iraq. If for no other reason than the fact that we can no longer financially sustain this war. To continue the same course is cutting our on economic throats. We need to begin diplomatic talks as soon as possible. We haven’t even tried that so we can’t know how successful or unsuccessful they will be. I still am unclear how the other side defines winning. When is this achieved, how is it defined? Have we not already won the war? There is usually more than one way to solve a problem seems to me we should be trying cheaper ways to finish this conflict.

Posted by: Carolina at May 30, 2008 8:08 AM
Comment #253955

Veritas
It is “more bloody offensive” to you because you defend, ignore and excuse the crimes of that administration because its the party of your choice, which was the point I was making.

And you are correct, not being a partisan hack, I do not have the ability to grasp how the two sides can be so hypocritical. If the two sides would have cared so much about justice when their party was at fault, our country would not be in the mess it is now.

If you were really serious and really cared about getting the country going in the right direction, you wouldn’t be looking at repairing what has come from the last eight years, you would be looking at the last 16 years.
Until you and others are willing to do that, we will remain a very divided country.

Posted by: kctim at May 30, 2008 9:38 AM
Comment #253962

Veritas,

I was 22 when Nixon resigned. I was young and very idealistic.

As I got older I was able to travel the world, meet people of other cultures, see how they lived, and hear what they believed. As a result, over time, most of my idealism has been replaced by pragmatism.
I also have come to realize how politics work in this country. Politics is all about cronyism. For good or bad, it is all about votes that are bought and sold.

I learned that there is a belief in Asia that you fix the problem, not the blame.

All of the Presidents in my lifetime have made decisions that caused people to die, some needlessly.

Bush isn’t alone in this aspect.

When Nixon was pardoned by Ford, there was a great hue and cry, and I was one of those that bitched the loudest. Much has been said since both for and against, but I believe now that it was the right thing to do.

So, do we jail every administration after they have been voted out of office?

As I said before, you are entitled to your opinion, however I believe that there are more people in this country that share my view, than share yours.

Posted by: Rocky at May 30, 2008 11:48 AM
Comment #253968

Carolina wrote, “We need to get out of Iraq. We need to begin diplomatic talks as soon as possible.”

My question Carolina is, who do we talk to?

Posted by: Jim M at May 30, 2008 1:01 PM
Comment #253970

David says, “Jim M, out of the loop means not privy to the discussions and information shared by the inner circle of the White House. Thought that was obvious, but for you, I will be magnanimous and spell it out.”

David, I believe you have magnanimity confused with arrogance. Please tell me when in our history any administration shared the private conversations of the “inner circle” with the public. Please cite one instance where this was true in the Clinton white house.

How can one be “out of the loop” when they were never intended to be part of the loop? Your implication is that somehow this administration is violating some long-held and cherished right and tradition.

David, do you not realize how absurd your preposition is? American’s have never received news reports or daily briefings on privately held discussions in the White House, or the Pentagon, or the FBI, CIA, or corporate board meetings for that matter. Are private discussions among members of the Senate made public?

Good grief David, are you suggesting we put C-span in the Oval Office and in the office of the Joints Chiefs of Staff? Let’s bug Nancy and Harry’s office as well.

My question to you is why we are still waiting for Obama and Hillary to release all their government related documents.

Posted by: Jim M at May 30, 2008 1:41 PM
Comment #253974

Rocky, I would appreciate it if you didn’t attempt to patronize me with these youthful idealism/pragmatism comments. I happen to be forty five years of age, am above average intelligence, and have led a full life.

All of the Presidents in my lifetime have made decisions that caused people to die, some needlessly.

Bush isn’t alone in this aspect.

So, do we jail every administration after they have been voted out of office?

This administration stands completely alone in just how far they have gone beyond what are the requirements of our Constitution and our Laws, and against those of International Law. To me, the question of allowing this administration to remain unimpeached and free from any measure of punishment goes directly to whether or not this country can ever come back and resemble a Democracy again. It also goes to directly to how we will be perceived and treated by the world community.

Unless we hold accountable an administration who has carried out an illegal and utterly unjustified war and occupation, torture and warrantless wiretapping, there is nothing to stop the next administration — whether Republican or Democrat — from doing likewise.

It is our governments duty to completely and fully investigate the many and various ways this administration has subverted our Constitution and has acted unlawfully under both domestic and international law. If the government fails to do so, and we don’t demand it of them, this country is being changed forever in an extremely negative, and permanent, direction.

What is at stake here is institutionalizing the concept of an imperial presidency — one in which our leadership is no longer in any way responsible to the Congress, or to the Judiciary, or to our People, or to anyone in the World. An administration that thinks that they can start illegal wars of aggression, that they can murder and torture people, that they can wiretap people, imprison people without charge and without any legal representation, and pick people up and/or murder them anywhere in the world.

Without anyone demanding any reprecussions, We the People are saying that this kind of presidential administration and these actions are in fact acceptable to us.

But that kind of leadership and those actions aren’t acceptable AT ALL. And if they are actually acceptable to the majority our people, clearly it is time for another revolution that can bring us back into line with the moral beliefs and positions that we once believed this nation has always fought for, and stood for.

This administration and their totally f**ked up ideas and actions HAVE to be beaten back by this country as a whole. Democrat, Republican, and Independent. If we don’t do it, this kind of imperial presidency that can commit lawless and illegal behavior at will is the kind of leadership and ideology that will become embedded in our society and in our legal and political thinking for generations to come.

There has to be accountability, both for such criminal dishonesty and for their unprecedented expansion of executive power. Because it’s not just about this administration. Don’t you see that ignoring or sanctioning the kind of leadership that doesn’t care about the constitution or international laws and treaties reaches well beyond them to all future administrations?

There has been an absolute intent here with this “unitary presidency” to be much more powerful than any we’ve ever seen before. They are not just a co-equal branch, they have made themselves into THE branch — with no Court or Congress able to check them. Such inherent assertions of the uncheckable power of the executive overrides constitutional limitations, international limitations, congressional limitations, and judicial limitations.

You’re trying to shrug what they’ve done off using the word “cronyism.” Sorry, but that’s not enough to cover it. Essentially what we are talking about here is making the president of the United States into a dictatorship — with the willing compliance of We the People.

It is Anti-American.

When Nixon was pardoned by Ford, there was a great hue and cry, and I was one of those that bitched the loudest. Much has been said since both for and against, but I believe now that it was the right thing to do.
As I said before, you are entitled to your opinion, however I believe that there are more people in this country that share my view, than share yours.

And as I said before, the fact that people chose to simply shrug off the actions of the Nixon administration and allow them to go without punishment is what has lead directly to the actions of our current administration. And I’ll also reiterate that it is clearly long past time to set a new precedent regarding what America will accept from our leadership, and how we will demand punishment for any illegal and unconstitutional actions they perpetrate.

Posted by: Veritas Vincit at May 30, 2008 2:31 PM
Comment #253980

Veritas,

Look, I have related my experiences as a means of explaining why I have reached the conclusions that I have, if you feel I have been patronizing I would guess that’s your problem not mine.
I have given that you are allowed to have your opinion, yet you see fit to criticize me for mine.
I refuse to be pummeled for my point of view.

Virtually every administration since at least WW2 has allowed torture in the name of America.
Why the hell do you think that so many people on this planet are pissed at us?

Iran, Iraq, El Salvador, … I could go on, and on. These countries are the way they are because of our meddling in their internal affairs, and the responsibility lay at the feet of the American Presidential administrations in power at the time. Everything that has come before has lead up to this administrations actions, not just Nixon.

Bushco has about 6 months left in office.
If the World Court wants to bring them up on charges after they leave office I’m fine with that.
They can do it without my money.

Posted by: Rocky at May 30, 2008 3:07 PM
Comment #253985

Oh, and BTW,

Every member of Congress that supported the Presidents policies, and every voter that put him back in office are just as culpable as this administration.

Just how many jail cells are you planning to build?

Posted by: Rocky at May 30, 2008 3:29 PM
Comment #253987

Veritas Vincit, you are great at listing supposed abuses by the Bush administration without any factual content. Just repeating some boring old MoveOn.org talking points is hardly evidence of any wrong doing. And, simply because you and they disagree with this administration is insufficient to warrant any action.

It took resolve and evidence to bring impeachment charges against President Clinton. You’ll need at least the same for President Bush.

Can you honestly tell me and others that the democrat power brokers wouldn’t bring legal charges against the Bush administration if they had any case and chance of success in a legal setting?

That you hate this administration is obvious, what is not obvious is an intelligent and factual presentation of the evidence for your hatred.

A 45 year old with “above average” intelligence should have learned that accusations are not facts. You would deprive this administration of the same basic constitutional rights that you accuse it of usurping.

Posted by: Jim M at May 30, 2008 4:29 PM
Comment #253995

jim M:

It took resolve and evidence to bring impeachment charges against President Clinton.

Resolve and evidence.
Forgive me if i take a moment to gather myself.

LOL!

Posted by: john trevisani at May 30, 2008 6:45 PM
Comment #253997

John,

I’m sorry you think perjury in a sexual harassment case is funny, but I assure you that many people do not. Even less funny is the use of that perjury to avoid a law that he himself championed and signed.

I guess we just have different versions of ‘funny’.

Posted by: Rhinehold at May 30, 2008 8:18 PM
Comment #253998

Jim M,

At the beginning of the comments I asked someone to point out where Scott McClellan has stated that Bush/Cheney knowingly lied or told him to knowingly lie. David was the only one to even attempt to do so, yet missed the mark by a mile by going off on a tangent that had nothing to do with my question.

And of course, I get labelled a ‘neo-con bush supporter’ when I don’e like the guy and never voted for him. I would just like a little bit of rationality when discussing the situation, something completely lost, especially on the left these days. Shrill screaming with no facts are just shrill screaming, IMO.

Posted by: Rhinehold at May 30, 2008 8:22 PM
Comment #253999
Where McClellan discusses the Valerie Plame incident, in which Rove, Cheney and others LIED directly to his face saying they had no involvement in the outing of her CIA identity and capacity.

Both Rove and Cheney had no role in the outing of Plame. Unless you count saying ‘Yes, I’ve heard that too’ and then not telling McClellen about it lying.

And the last time I saw, Cheney is in no way responsible for his assistant violating the law, unless there is proof that he ordered him to? In which case I’m interested why it hasn’t been brought forth…

Accusation does not make fact, David.

As for Iraq, McClellan says it was an unnecessary war, and makes the case based on the Administration’s refusal to hear and pursue validation of counsel and analysis on both sides of the WMD issue offered them.

Yippidie Do. Bad administration yes. Lying? no.

Contrary to the Bush Administrations continuing lies on this topic, there were sources within the intelligence community raising doubts about whether Iraq STILL had WMD.

And they were not the only voices. That’s the problem, David. You have one group saying one thing and another group saying another. Now, if you decide to believe the evidence of one side as being more credible than the other, that makes you wrong, not a liar.

Interesting how you defend Obama for ‘lying’ when he stated he would never do something and then changed him mind when it was politically expedient but then fault someone for making a bad decision, one back up with evidence just as compelling as the opposition, and not the only reason for an action. There was more to the war than knowing that they had WMD for sure, it was the fact that because of their obsfucation there was never going to be a way to know for sure, as they were still blocking access all the way up until the inspectors were pulled. 12 years after they were supposed to cooperate.

But, I know it’s political dynamite to mention that an action had merit if it is unpopular now, nevermind that it was overwhelmingly supported at the time even before 9/11…

No credible sources in the intelligence community at that time had any evidence of nuclear or intercontinental ballistic capability, justifying Cheney’s and Bush’s public implications and insinuations that Saddam Hussein posed a threat to our homeland with nuclear devices then or in the near future.

Right, because ICBMs are the only way deliver nuclear weaponry…

Oh wait, you mean they could be on a plane? Or in a suitcase? Or they could use anthrax delivered in letters? What would radioactivity in letters do? In our drinking water, etc?

The belief that they were not a threat in light of what we saw al Qaeda, a smaller organization with much less capability than the Iraqi terorism groups they used, could do with a little forthought is very disturbing, IMO… It’s like you assume that they couldn’t think of anything other than traditional delivery systems and just gave up. “Oh Well, we’re too stupid for them ‘merkins”.

Then there is the embarrassing CIA Fact Books predating the invasion of Iraq in public libraries across our country which CLEARLY defined Iraq as a very factionalized nation with potential warring internal religious and cultural groups held together and in relative peace only by the Authoritarian control of the Iraqi government. RED FLAG - RED FLAG - RED FLAG!!!! For all to see who cared to read what was public information of the time.

We are talking CIA Fact Books 2001 and 2002 here, which tells us in no equivocal terms, what the CIA was ready and willing to advise, and which the Bush Administration DID NOT WANT TO HEAR regarding the consequences of and potential outcome of an invasion of Iraq.

I suppose you’re right, we should never try to go into anywhere where we might have a hard time of it… Like Somalia. Instead we should just bomb people from the sky. Who cares about the increase in collateral damages, certainly not the previous administration.

BTW, where was the lie here again? I think I missed it… Sounds like an anti-Bush rant rather than answering my question which still goes unanswered IMO. I don’t like Bush either and never voted for him, but it’s a shame that partisanship takes the place for rationality these days.

Posted by: Rhinehold at May 30, 2008 8:39 PM
Comment #254000

Why should we impeach?

Hm, let me see: The authorization for torture (the U.S. executed a Japanese soldier for torturing U.S. POW’s. What kind of torture was the Japanese soldier accused of using? Waterboarding.

Yet the Bush administration says it’s not torture.

Then there’s the new power the government has to (1) declare a U.S. citizen an ‘enemy of the state’, (2) arrest him without charges or evidence, and (3) keep him in prison for years without access to a lawyer or hearing before a judge.

Then there’s the ongoing REFUSAL by the Bush administration and Department of Justice to allow their cronies to answer subpoenas to testify before Congress.

There’s much more, but that should surely suffice.

Can you IMAGINE what the Republicans would have been saying if ANY of these had been done under a Democratic administration?

Posted by: Glenn Contrarian at May 30, 2008 8:55 PM
Comment #254003

Glenn
To make a long story short probably the same thing you guys are doing now. Dems bad mouthing reps. Reps bad mouthing dems. Politics as usual.

Posted by: KAP at May 30, 2008 10:56 PM
Comment #254005

Rocky:

If the World Court wants to bring them up on charges after they leave office I’m fine with that. They can do it without my money.

Yeah, I’m fine with that too, although unlike you, I don’t have any problem at all with the idea that some of my tax dollars could be used to make sure that justice will be served regarding the actions of this administration on behalf of every single one of our soldiers (and for the many Iraqi people) who have been killed, or maimed for life, or for anyone who has been tortured and driven insane due to the Bush administration’s illegal and immoral policy changes, or for anyone who has been renditioned to foreign gulags by our government, or held without charges and denied legal council, whether in American jails or over in Gitmo — for years on end.

Btw, it’s not just the World Court that can bring Bush up on charges since Congress has failed to do one of their most important jobs by holding the president accountable for his actions. As soon as Bush leaves executive office he will no longer be immune or protected from being held to account. In fact, a whole bunch of prosecutors across America can and indeed should bring Bush to court for his war crimes. It might seem hard to believe, but he could actually be made to stand trial and get convicted over what he has done to our own soldiers, right here within our own country.

Currently, I’m very eager to read
Vincent Bugliosi’s new book
The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder, as I hear he’s written a book that presents an absolutely airtight, open and shut case for Bush’s conviction — using documents and evidence that we already have (or some we may soon have access to). I’ve even heard in advance about this book that Bugliosi is advocating that the death penalty is warranted for the crimes perpetrated by George W. Bush.

Personally though, I think a Nuremberg type of trial would actually be preferable. Not only for Bush, but for everyone who had a high level of involvement in taking us to war in Iraq, as well as those who advocated breaking the law in order to further any of this administrations immoral policies.

Rhinehold,
Does McClelland claim that the president and all the presidents men are liars? Yeah, actually it appears that he does — yet without using the word “lie” very often. Here are a few more quotes from the book What Happened: Inside the Bush White House and Washington’s Culture of Deception

On the Iraq War:

“History appears poised to confirm what most Americans today have decided: that the decision to invade Iraq was a serious strategic blunder. No one, including me, can know with absolute certainty how the war will be viewed decades from now when we can more fully understand its impact. What I do know is that war should only be waged when necessary, and the Iraq war was not necessary.”

Katrina and the Iraq War:

“One of the worst disasters in our nation’s history became one of the biggest disasters in Bush’s presidency. Katrina and the botched federal response to it would largely come to define Bush’s second term. And the perception of this catastrophe was made worse by previous decisions President Bush had made, including, first and foremost, the failure to be open and forthright on Iraq and rushing to war with inadequate planning and preparation for its aftermath.”

“The collapse of the administration’s rationales for war, which became apparent months after our invasion, should never have come as such a surprise. … In this case, the ‘liberal media’ didn’t live up to its reputation. If it had, the country would have been better served.”

On disclosing the CIA identity of Plame:

“I had allowed myself to be deceived into unknowingly passing along a falsehood,” McClellan writes. “It would ultimately prove fatal to my ability to serve the president effectively. I didn’t learn that what I’d said was untrue until the media began to figure it out almost two years later.”

“But the top White House officials who knew the truth — including Rove, Libby and possibly Vice President Cheney — allowed me, even encouraged me, to repeat a lie.”

Here are some other quotes from the book being highlighted in news stories and in the blogs:


Bush relied on “”political propaganda campaign” to sell the war.

McClellan says that the real reason Bush wanted to invade Iraq was that it was an:

“opportunity to create a legacy of greatness”

“The president had promised himself that he would accomplish what his father had failed to do by winning a second term in office. And that meant operating continually in campaign mode: never explaining, never apologizing, never retreating.”

Bush’s personality and character:

[Bush’s] “leadership style is based more on instinct than deep intellectual debate.”

“I think he meant what he said in that conversation about cocaine. It’s the first time when I felt I was witnessing Bush convincing himself to believe something that probably was not true, and that, deep down, he knew was not true. And his reason for doing so is fairly obvious — political convenience…”

Bush “has a way of falling back on the hazy memory to protect himself from potential political embarrassment. In other words, being evasive is not the same as lying in Bush’s mind…It would not be the last time Bush mishandled potential controversy. But the cases to come would involve the public trust, and the failure to deal with them early, directly and head-on would lead to far greater suspicion and far more destructive partisan warfare.”

Bush managed the run-up to the Iraq war:

“in a way that almost guaranteed that the use of force would become the only feasible option,”

Re: contradictory intelligence on the war:

“largely ignored or simply disregarded”

as the war went badly, responded by:

“never reflecting, never reconsidering, never compromising.”

Pretty damning stuff. Of course, we’re already hearing that the Bush administration might be “hypothetically” able to block McClelland from having the ability to testify before Congress — at least currently.

Jim M, I’ve argued with Bush loyalists like you in blogs for too many years. Since your sort refuses to look at “the facts”, I’ve learned that it’s not worth my time to argue with your kind.

Glenn Contrarian, a very good start on the list that could be made. We can automatically add the 2002 NIE to such a list regarding the Iraq War too. It was given to Bush only days before he came out and told us that Iraq posed an eminent threat to our nation, though the estimate said exactly the opposite was actually the case. And then there are the Downing Street Memos, etc. etc. etc.
Lots of evidence we might chose from.

Posted by: Veritas Vincit at May 31, 2008 12:52 AM
Comment #254040

Carolina, ITA, the Rpblcns have self destructed by supporting instead of impeaching GWBush, but the Democrats are in bad shape since beign taken over by a cult of personality. ITA on this site, mostly propagandists, wearers of tin foil hats, and the cult members now dominating on this site.

Posted by: ohrealy at May 31, 2008 12:09 PM
Comment #254041

ohrealy,

ITA?

International Trombone Association?

Posted by: Rocky at May 31, 2008 12:15 PM
Comment #254045

“Can you IMAGINE what the Republicans would have been saying if ANY of these had been done under a Democratic administration?”
Posted by: Glenn Contrarian at May 30, 2008 08:55 PM

Yes Glenn, I can imagine what Repbs would do, nothing…as your short list doesn’t include any impeachable offense. Keep working on it and let us know when you find one.

Posted by: Jim M at May 31, 2008 1:51 PM
Comment #254046

Veritas said, “Jim M, I’ve argued with Bush loyalists like you in blogs for too many years. Since your sort refuses to look at “the facts”, I’ve learned that it’s not worth my time to argue with your kind.”

Veritas, present some facts and I will gladly consider them. Actually I am not a Bush loyalist, I am a constitutional loyalist…something many on this blog wouldn’t recognize.

Posted by: Jim M at May 31, 2008 2:01 PM
Comment #254048

ohrealy:

ITA on this site, mostly propagandists, wearers of tin foil hats, and the cult members now dominating on this site.

This blog seems a lot more of a mixed bag of opinions to me. Btw, if you take such a dim view of the folks in Watchblog, I have to wonder why you would bother to continue posting here?

Rocky:

ITA?

International Trombone Association?

How about Identical Twin Acrobats?
Internet Tubes Adjusters?
Intentionally Toxic Alienators?
:^)

Posted by: Veritas Vincit at May 31, 2008 2:30 PM
Comment #254053

Veritas Vincit, I will probably be done posting here as soon as the primaries are over, unless BHO resigns the nomination and his Senate seat. Your posts at this site have generally been the worst I have ever seen from someone on this side of the aisle, over many years. If BHO wins the nomination, please continue in the same vein, as he will be undone by the people who support him, more than by any opposition. We’re still not going to elect the next Dukakis. The country hasn’t changed that much to win an election with college towns, the black vote, and upscale gamblers. All BHO has going for him is the bad economy. Everything else is B.S., and is recognized as such by those who have not bought into the cult.

Posted by: ohrealy at May 31, 2008 3:30 PM
Comment #254055

Jim M how do you feel about the habeas corpus issue that Bush and his administration pushed thru in 06 with the 109th? As a constitutional loyalist how can you justify this administrations attack on the constitution after this?

“Gonzales’s Jan. 18 statement suggests that he is still seeking reasons to make habeas corpus optional, subordinate to President George W. Bush’s executive powers that Bush’s neoconservative legal advisers claim are virtually unlimited during “a time of war,” even one as vaguely defined as the “war on terror” which may last forever.

In the final weeks of the Republican-controlled Congress, the Bush administration pushed through the Military Commissions Act of 2006 that effectively eliminated habeas corpus for non-citizens, including legal resident aliens.

Under the new law, Bush can declare any non-citizen an “unlawful enemy combatant” and put the person into a system of military tribunals that give defendants only limited rights. Critics have called the tribunals “kangaroo courts” because the rules are heavily weighted in favor of the prosecution.

Some language in the new law also suggests that “any person,” presumably including American citizens, could be swept up into indefinite detention if they are suspected of having aided and abetted terrorists.

“Any person is punishable as a principal under this chapter who commits an offense punishable by this chapter, or aids, abets, counsels, commands, or procures its commission,” according to the law, passed by the Republican-controlled Congress in September and signed by Bush on Oct. 17, 2006.

Another provision in the law seems to target American citizens by stating that “any person subject to this chapter who, in breach of an allegiance or duty to the United States, knowingly and intentionally aids an enemy of the United States … shall be punished as a military commission … may direct.””

Quoted from”
http://www.consortiumnews.com/2007/011807.html

here is Jeffersons opinion:
Why suspend the habeas corpus in insurrections
and rebellions? Examine the history of England. See how few of the cases of the suspension of the habeas corpus law have been worthy of that suspension.
They have been either real treasons, wherein the
parties might as well have been charged at once, or sham plots, where it was shameful they should ever have been suspected. Yet for the few cases wherein the suspension of the habeas corpus has done real good, that operation is now become habitual and the minds of the nation almost prepared to live under its constant suspension.
Thomas Jefferson

Posted by: j2t2 at May 31, 2008 4:41 PM
Comment #254058
Veritas Vincit, I will probably be done posting here as soon as the primaries are over,

You’ll likely have to bear with posting here for awhile then, as it seems likely that Clinton and her supporters want to take her fight all the way to the convention.

unless BHO resigns the nomination

Why would the winner of the primary resign his nomination?

and his Senate seat.

If he is voted in, the seat will automatically become vacant, so that’s something you might be able to look forward to.

Your posts at this site have generally been the worst I have ever seen from someone on this side of the aisle, over many years.

This will likely disturb you, but I take this as a high compliment. Because I’m not one to mindlessly follow the entrenched DLC Democratic party machine, or parrot their lines as so very many Democrats choose to do. I also don’t withhold necessary criticisms wherever I feel they’re warranted, even when they apply to politicians I’ve held admiration for, or who have supported many of the same views that I do.

If BHO wins the nomination, please continue in the same vein, as he will be undone by the people who support him, more than by any opposition.

I fully intend to continue in the same vein of calling things as I see them. I don’t think Obama has a problem with people who value honesty and who are forthright. And that goes whether those people stand on the left or on the right.

We’re still not going to elect the next Dukakis.

Indeed, we’re going to elect Barack Obama.

The country hasn’t changed that much to win an election with college towns, the black vote, and upscale gamblers.

I think it’s clear that this country HAS changed. Because if it hasn’t then why has Barack Obama doing so well? And why has the “inevitable” Hillary Clinton, the entrenched, corporately sponsored DLC candidate been losing the Democratic nomination? And why is McCain failing to rally all the factions of the GOP around his candidacy?

All BHO has going for him is the bad economy.

I disagree that the tanking economy is the only reason that the Democratic candidate is likely to do well during this election season. America knows that there is an unnecessary war that needs to be brought to an end, and since Obama was against the war from the beginning, his sound judgment is being viewed very favorably. There are also many other serious problems and crisis that need to be dealt with, and he’s an intelligent articulate candidate that has been addressing them during this campaign.

Everything else is B.S.

What I consider BS is Hillary Clinton knowing that she could lessen the chance that the Democratic candidate will win the primary election if she doesn’t allow us to move forward now, but keeps implying she wants a floor fight at the convention more than anything else. She and Bill know damn well it’s time for the Democratic nominee to start taking on John McCain, and they also know it it would be a good idea to finally put aside the rancor of the primary fight and begin rallying together around our candidate, but they don’t seem to care.

and is recognized as such by those who have not bought into the cult.

This “cult” is calling for a change in business as usual in Washington, and an end to the poisonous partisan hatred so prevalent over the last twenty-plus years, not more of the Same Old Sh*t we’ve been getting, and not more years of continuing Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton Dynasty rule.

Posted by: Veritas Vincit at May 31, 2008 5:37 PM
Comment #254061

HRC is wasting her time, as I have said since she had to start lending money to her campaign.
There is more to come on BHO and money, drugs, and sex, which will eventually wreck his promising career. He could have lasted longer if he hadn’t run for POTUS. It’s easy to judge people based on their opinion of HRC, especially when it bears no relationship to any reality, and does not even include things that were actual problems with her, but are not in the current news cycle. Here is a clue for the clueless. HRC was the reason that Janet Reno became attorney general.

Posted by: ohrealy at May 31, 2008 6:00 PM
Comment #254108

“since Obama was against the war from the beginning, his sound judgment is being viewed very favorably. There are also many other serious problems and crisis that need to be dealt with, and he’s an intelligent articulate candidate that has been addressing them during this campaign.” Posted by: Veritas Vincit at May 31, 2008 05:37 PM

Veritas, I find it interesting that you cite Obama’s sound judgment as flowing from just one source, his personal opinion about the Iraq war, the opposition of which he could not vote as he wasn’t in the U.S. Senate at the time.

Conversely, of those things he could change as a private citizen he choose not to. For example, his continued support of his racist pastor Rev. Wright, his continued relationship with an admitted terrorists, and then, his fond embrace of the pastor who replaced Wright. Now he has had to distance himself from that endorsement and has had to actually leave his “beloved” church. Hardly sound judgment, but rather, political expedience.

All this Veritas, and you continue to ascribe Obama with “sound judgment”. Is this what we could expect from a President Obama? To run Hot or cold, embrace or distance, support or deny on relationships with our allies and enemies just to pander to popular public opinion?

Hillary Clinton is much the stronger candidate and displays some of the characteristics most American’s admire, that being… resolve and consistency, both lacking in Mr. Obama.

The person we elect as president must be able to withstand the temptation to subscribe to the latest poll, the current hot topic, the quick fix, the feel-good remedy and act in ways that benefits all America and her people at all times and in all things.

Posted by: Jim M at June 1, 2008 12:33 PM
Comment #254128

To suggest that Obama more than Clinton panders to popular opinion and political expediency is just laughable. Both Clintons have been all about expediency - which at times can have merit when getting something done is at stake. Does Hillary Clinton really believe we should allow the employment of cluster bombs in proximity to crowded civilian areas, or was hers a vote of political expedience to look “tough”?

How Obama handles his relationship with his church (quite reasonably given the circumstances in my own opinion) has little to no bearing on national public policy. Clinton’s failure to read the full version of the intelligence report before voting to authorize Bush to go to war show truly poor judgment.

When all is said and done I am quite pleased that my party has not taken the safe and comfortable route of nominating the heir apparent as their candidate, but has instead put forward a candidate of vision who is much LESS likely to sway with the popular sentiment of the moment, but speak powerfully to all Americans.

Posted by: Walker Willingham at June 1, 2008 4:24 PM
Comment #254134

McClellan was on Russert this morning, a complete waste of air time. It’s no wonder people are more interested in Spitzer’s hooker, The Davids from Idol, or Madame Sarkozy. ITA stand for In Total Agreement, in case you were joking. BHO, however, is a joke, a product being marketed, a marionette being manipulated, a trickster, an overeducated fool, disingenuous like all politicians, and unlikely ever to become POTUS. He is the one screwing the Democratic party with his 46 year young ambition, not HRC. He’s no RFK, JFK, MLK, but pretends to be more than himself, the new Dukakis. And that’s from someone who actually likes him. What do you think you’re going to get from the people who don’t like him at all.

Posted by: ohrealy at June 1, 2008 5:07 PM
Comment #254259

ohrealy, you sound just like the Clinton’s who utterly underestimated Obama a year ago and continued to dismiss his candidacy as not ready for prime time, right up until 1 month ago, when it hit them like a ton of bricks, that they had lost the nomination.

You underestimate the American people’s demand for a change from the past status quo way of creating more problems than are solved with each solution. Obama’s entire campaign is about changing that paradigm, with the American people’s assistance, pressure, and vote.

It is one of the most powerful cultural messages to be brought to the fore since, RFK, MLK, JFK. And why Obama will be this nation’s next president. Obama continues to hammer home the idea that one person in the White House cannot change the status quo.

But, one person in the White House who has a mandate for changing the status quo from the people and who can organize and focus the people’s efforts, sacrifice, and political motivation, can spearhead a bottom up change in the status quo that can truly alter this course that continues to fail the future which America has been on.

What he says is absolutely true, whether no not one believes Obama is that spearhead. And truth is what American’s have been starving for a very long time from government and politicians.

Posted by: David R. Remer at June 3, 2008 9:29 AM
Comment #254260

ohrealy, and NO, McClellan’s interviews are NOT a waste of time, not for millions of viewers tuning in to hear him. Did he write the book for money? Of course. Did he write the book because his perspective has changed? Of course. Did he lie anywhere in his Book?

Well, so far, not a single person from the Bush Administration has said so. The attack his loyalty, his motives, and his timing. But, they don’t attack the veracity of the content in the book. And that speaks volumes.

Posted by: David R. Remer at June 3, 2008 9:33 AM
Comment #254296

DRRemer, the people that I’m not underestimating are Axelrod and the Strategygroup, in creating a fictional character who was capable of winning the nomination, but is unlikely to win the election in November, much less the election in December. I still don’t understand what BHO’s big hurry is to become POTUS at 46. Thanks for your help.

Posted by: ohrealy at June 3, 2008 1:46 PM
Post a comment