| Topic: |
Sociology > Education |
| User: |
"" |
| Date: |
23 Jun 2005 05:54:55 AM |
| Object: |
They Died So Republicans Could Take the Senate |
From: "Robert Nordlander" [delete[]
Subject: They Died So Republicans Could Take the Senate
Date: Thu, 23 Jun 2005 00:03:52 -0500
----- Original Message -----
From: George Erickson
They Died So Republicans Could Take the Senate
by Thom Hartmann
06/20/05 "Commondreams" - - Richard Nixon authorized the Watergate burglary
and subsequent cover-up to advance his own political ambitions. Because
Nixon's lies were done for the craven purpose of getting and holding
political power, his lies - in the minds of the majority of the members of
Congress - were elevated to the level of impeachable "high crimes and
misdemeanors."
Bill Clinton had sex in the White House with Monica Lewinsky, but Congress
concluded he'd lied about it to maintain political power. Another
impeachable crime.
The real scandal of the Downing Street Memos, with the greatest potential
to leave the Bush presidency in permanent disgrace, is their implication
that lies may have been put forward to help Bush, Republicans, and Blair
politically. If Bush lied to gain and keep political power, precedent
suggests he and his collaborators in the administration may even be
vulnerable to impeachment.
Conservatives say the Bush claims of WMD and "mushroom clouds" were a "lie
of ignorance." Condoleezza Rice periodically does the talk-show circuit and
repeats the "lie of ignorance" myth. "The entire world thought Saddam had
WMD," she and other Bush representatives suggest over and over again. "We
had bad intelligence."
This is a lie to cover up a more damaging lie. "The entire world" was, in
fact, watching and listening to Hans Blix, who was telling us that he
couldn't find any evidence of WMD - or any other sort of threat - in Iraq.
Most of our allies were convinced that Saddam did not have WMD, or that if
he did have some small stockpiles left they were so insignificant and
degraded that they were irrelevant. This is why the only permanent member
of the UN Security Council to join us in attacking Iraq was Blair's UK:
China, France, and Russia didn't believe Iraq represented a threat to them,
to us, or even to its neighbors.
Nonetheless, Bush keeps trying to push this lie-to-cover-up-a-lie. In his
June 19, 2005 radio address, he suggested that the Saudis who flew the
planes into the World Trade Center were actually Iraqis. "We went to war
because we were attacked," he said, hoping Americans' memories are short.
US media pundits, knowing the "WMD lie" and the "Saddam attacked us" lie
for what they are, mostly suggest that Bush's use of WMD and terrorism to
justify invading Iraq was a "lie of convenience." The implicit assumption
is that Bush did this because of a "greater good"; that even though he
lied, he was doing so to advance America's interests. This helps pundits to
feel like they're part of an in-crowd elite who know what's best for
America, even if they can't tell the children - er - citizens.
The "lie of convenience" is based on the neocon argument that the US needed
a "footprint" in the Middle East to both secure our oil supplies and
provide military security to Israel. But it ignores the many nations in the
region where we now have military bases (some huge), the power and ability
of our navy, and the power of Israel's military. And it doesn't explain how
our getting bogged down in Iraq could possibly advance our interests at
home or around the world.
Often included in the "lie of convenience" mix is the PNAC suggestion that
for America to be safe, we must forcefully project military power all over
the world and hold decisive control of the world's largest oil supplies.
This flies in the face of most of America's history, starting with George
Washington's farewell address warning against "foreign entanglements." It's
not only un-American, but is the assumption used throughout history to
justify empires, and in every single case has ended up bleeding dry those
empires, consigning them to painful contraction or total collapse.
And neither the "lie of convenience" nor the "lie of ignorance" were
demonstrably the reasons why Bush invaded Iraq.
So why then did George W. Bush lie us into invading and occupying Iraq?
We know that Bush wanted to massively cut taxes on his corporate sponsors
and people, like himself, with substantial inherited fortunes. He wanted to
weaken government protections of the environment, children, the poor, the
elderly, the ozone layer, and our nation's forests. He wanted his oil-rig
and mining-interest friends to have more access to public lands.
We know he wanted to undo Franklin D. Roosevelt's New Deal by stripping the
American workplace (particularly government and schools) of unions, rolling
back "socialist" unemployment and Social Security programs, and eliminating
SEC and tort restraints on predatory corporate behavior. He'd even
campaigned on this platform - particularly Social Security privatization -
back in 1978 when he unsuccessfully ran for Congress from Texas.
We know he wanted to increase the police power of the federal government,
gut the First and Fourth Amendments, and thus create a "safe and orderly
nation" of people under constant surveillance, who never question those in
power.
We know he wanted to give billions of our tax dollars to churches he
approved of, and bring their leaders into the halls of government. He
wanted to pass laws incorporating religious dogma about when human life
begins, what is appropriate sexuality, and free churches to use tax-exempt
dollars to influence politics.
It was an ambitious agenda. In order to bring about this neoconservative
paradise, Bush knew he'd need considerable political capital. And that kind
of capital didn't come from his being selected as President by the Supreme
Court.
Such political capital - such raw political power - would only come, he
believed, by his becoming a "war president."
Bush wasn't the first to realize how war strengthened a president in power,
although the Founders saw it as a danger rather than an opportunity.
On April 20, 1795, James Madison wrote, "Of all the enemies to public
liberty war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded because it comprises and
develops the germ of every other. War is the parent of armies; from these
proceed debts and taxes. And armies, and debts, and taxes are the known
instruments for bringing the many under the domination of the few."
Reflecting on war's impact on the Executive Branch of government, Madison
continued his letter about the dangerous and intoxicating power of war for
a president.
"In war, too, the discretionary power of the Executive [President] is
extended," he wrote. "Its influence in dealing out offices, honors, and
emoluments is multiplied; and all the means of seducing the minds, are
added to those of subduing the force of the people. The same malignant
aspect in republicanism may be traced in the inequality of fortunes, and
the opportunities of fraud, growing out of a state of war...and in the
degeneracy of manners and morals, engendered by both.
"No nation," he concluded, "could preserve its freedom in the midst of
continual warfare."
But freedom wasn't the goal of George W. Bush or his neoconservative
Republican colleagues. It was political power. And they were willing to lie
us into a war to achieve it.
Writer Russ Baker noted in October, 2004, that Mickey Herskowitz, the man
Bush had originally hired to write his autobiography ("A Charge To Keep: My
Journey To The White House"), told Baker that George Bush was planning his
Iraq invasion - to seize and hold political power for himself and the
Republican Party - during his first presidential election campaign.
"He was thinking about invading Iraq in 1999," Herskowitz told Baker. "It
was on his mind. He [Bush] said to me: 'One of the keys to being seen as a
great leader is to be seen as a commander-in-chief.' And he said, 'My
father had all this political capital built up when he drove the Iraqis out
of Kuwait and he wasted it.' He said, 'If I have a chance to invade, if I
had that much capital, I'm not going to waste it. I'm going to get
everything passed that I want to get passed and I'm going to have a
successful presidency."
Bush lied, and Americans died. And continue to die. But politically - at
least so far - it has worked out well for Bush.
It was a lie of political expediency, with the war resolution carefully
timed just before the 2002 elections to help the Republicans take back the
Senate.
It was echoed and amplified and repeated over and over again to help him
and other Republicans get elected in 2004.
It wasn't a war for oil - cheap oil was just a useful secondary benefit.
It wasn't a war against terrorism - that was just a convenient excuse.
It wasn't a war to enrich Bush's and Cheney's cronies - those were just
pleasant by-products.
It wasn't a war to show Poppy Bush that Junior was more of a man than him -
that was just a personal bonus for Dubya.
It was, pure and simple, well planned years in advance, a war to solidify
Bush and the Republican Party's political capital.
It was a war for political power. That had to be first. Everything else -
oil, profits, ongoing PATRIOT Act powers, easy manipulation of the media -
all could only come if political power was seized and held through at least
two decisive election cycles.
The Bush administration lied us into an invasion to get and keep political
power. It's that simple.
The same reason Richard Nixon authorized Watergate and then lied about the
cover-up. The same reason Nixon lied about his "secret plan" to get out of
Vietnam.
When Americans - and the US media - finally realize that Bush's lie was
just to get "political capital," to increase the "discretionary power of
the President" so he could undo Roosevelt's New Deal and seal power across
all three branches of government for his Party, they will turn on him and
his Republican co-conspirators.
If it comes out in the open before the election of 2006, Republicans could
even lose the House and the Senate, which would virtually guarantee
investigations of the many other crimes of the Bush administration. (For
example, "bribery" is one of two crimes cited in the Constitution as
grounds for impeachment - and the Big Pharma/Medicaid and Big
Tobacco/lawsuit settlement cases may qualify.)
Probably the only two things that could slow down the American electorate's
growing realization of the magnitude and horror of Bush's political lies
would be another attack on America or a new Bush-led war into Syria, Iran,
or North Korea.
Bush has already shown, by lying us into Iraq, that he's at least capable
of the latter. As Jefferson wrote in a letter to James Madison on February
8th 1776, "It should ever be held in mind that insult and war are the
consequences of a lack of respectability in the national character."
And already the cons are working the talk-show circuit, threatening the US
with a new attack, and recommending we strike now at Iran or Syria. "Be
afraid. Be aggressive. Give us more political power."
But if Jefferson was right when he said that the best defense of democracy
was an informed electorate, there is still a small window of opportunity
for the American press to do the job they've been so carefully avoiding
these past five years.
Instead of just reporting that the Downing Street Minutes and memos exist,
they can highlight them against the timeline of Bush repeatedly lying
during those days before the war. They can quote him saying that he had no
plans for war, was working toward peace, and only wanted Congressional
authorization to avoid a war, and point out that this was all after -
months after - his administration had told the British that war was a sure
thing.
Lying, in other words, to get us to go along with an invasion that would
cement in Republican control of the Congress and the White House, and,
thus, also the courts. Lying for nothing more than "political capital."
Let us hope our Fourth Estate is up to the task.
Thom Hartmann (thom at thomhartmann.com) is a Project Censored
Award-winning best-selling author, and host of a nationally syndicated
daily progressive talk show and a morning progressive talk show on KPOJ in
Portland, Oregon. www.thomhartmann.com His most recent books are "The Last
Hours of Ancient Sunlight," "Unequal Protection," "We The People," "The
Edison Gene", and "What Would Jefferson Do?
**************************************************************************************
You are invited to check out the following:
The Constitutional Principle: Separation of Church and State
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
[and the discussion group for the above site listed below]
HRSepCnS · Hampton Roads SepChurch&State
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HRSepCnS/
[Its not just Hampton Roads folks who are members]
***************************************************************
.. . . You can't understand a phrase such as "Congress shall make no law
respecting an establishment of religion" by syllogistic reasoning. Words
take their meaning from social as well as textual contexts, which is why "a
page of history is worth a volume of logic." New York Trust Co. v. Eisner,
256 U.S. 345, 349, 41 S.Ct. 506, 507, 65 L.Ed. 963 (1921) (Holmes, J.).
Sherman v. Community Consol. Dist. 21, 980 F.2d 437, 445 (7th Cir. 1992)
.. . .
****************************************************************
THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE:
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
"Dedicated to combatting 'history by sound bite'."
Now including a re-publication of Tom Peters
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE HOME PAGE
and
Audio links to Supreme Court oral arguments and
Speech by civil rights/constitutional lawyer and others.
This site is a member of the following web rings:
Freethought Ring--&--Freethought, Religion & Beliefs Ring
The First Amendment Ring--&--The Church-State Ring
American History WebRing--&--The History Ring
Let Freedom Ring--&--Religious Freedom Ring
Law Issues Ring--&--Legal Research Ring
****************************************************************
.
|
|
| User: "James E. Morrow" |
|
| Title: Re: They Died So Republicans Could Take the Senate |
24 Jun 2005 11:08:48 AM |
|
|
In article <d75lb1118fgrfcs8g1b6r30og51h2j8ui4@4ax.com>, buckeye-
ELO@nospam.net says...
They Died So Republicans Could Take the Senate
by Thom Hartmann
06/20/05 "Commondreams" - - Richard Nixon authorized the Watergate burglary
and subsequent cover-up to advance his own political ambitions. Because
Nixon's lies were done for the craven purpose of getting and holding
political power, his lies - in the minds of the majority of the members of
Congress - were elevated to the level of impeachable "high crimes and
misdemeanors."
<Snip>
While I am a conservative I never supported President Nixon. On the
other hand I must take exception to this post and its blatant lie.
Nixon did not authorize the Watergate break in. His crime was the cover
up. Demorats couldn't tell the truth if they had to. The history is
well known so why lie about it?
--
James E. Morrow Email to -- "The whole
aim of practical politics is to keep the populace in a continual state
of alarm (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing
them with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary."--
H.L. Mencken
.
|
|
|
| User: "Larry Hewitt" |
|
| Title: Re: They Died So Republicans Could Take the Senate |
24 Jun 2005 03:36:17 PM |
|
|
"James E. Morrow" <> wrote in message
news:MPG.1d2550d0f32318ef989756@news.individual.net...
In article <d75lb1118fgrfcs8g1b6r30og51h2j8ui4@4ax.com>, buckeye-
ELO@nospam.net says...
They Died So Republicans Could Take the Senate
by Thom Hartmann
06/20/05 "Commondreams" - - Richard Nixon authorized the Watergate
burglary
and subsequent cover-up to advance his own political ambitions. Because
Nixon's lies were done for the craven purpose of getting and holding
political power, his lies - in the minds of the majority of the members
of
Congress - were elevated to the level of impeachable "high crimes and
misdemeanors."
<Snip>
While I am a conservative I never supported President Nixon. On the
other hand I must take exception to this post and its blatant lie.
Nixon did not authorize the Watergate break in. His crime was the cover
up. Demorats couldn't tell the truth if they had to. The history is
well known so why lie about it?
Unfortunately we will never know the truth. There is a the famous 18 minute
gap on the ape of Nixon talking to Haldeman 3 days after the burglars were
arrested. Some say this was the beginning of hte coverup. Others say there
was an admission the Nixon was involved in the planning.
It seems strange that the planning fo the coverup is the real reason ---
ther e are hundreds of hours of other conversations implicating Nixon in the
coverup, and insiders acknowledge that Nixon thought he could survive an
investigation into the coverup.
But actual evidence that he had participated in the planning of breakins and
burglaries (this was not the first for the DNC HQ, and there were other
breakins from the Ellsberg affair) was absolutely something Nixon would be
concerned about.
Knowing Nixon's penchant for involving himself in the minutea of white house
operations, it is very reasonable to believe he was in on things fom the
beginning.
Again, we will never know for sure, one way or the other..
Larry
--
James E. Morrow Email to -- "The whole
aim of practical politics is to keep the populace in a continual state
of alarm (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing
them with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary."--
H.L. Mencken
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
