As the war becomes more deadly, costly and counter-productive each day, a growing majority of citizens want to see a change of course in Iraq and U.S. foreign policies that better reflect American values.

With mid-term elections approaching, Peace Action's Peace Voter 2006 campaign will bring the occupation of Iraq and other key foreign policy issues to the forefront of the electoral debate.

We will put our elected officials on record on critical peace and security issues and demand their commitment to a more responsible foreign policy for our country.

By making peace the top priority in 2006, you can make a big impact at the local level, helping to build a powerful movement of people willing to organize for peace on Election Day, and beyond. This November, let's hold Congress accountable to the rising tide of public opinion that's urging an end to the war in Iraq and a new direction for U.S. relations with the world.

Become a Peace Voter today.

1100 Wayne Ave. Ste 1020, Silver Spring MD 20910 (301) 565-4050 www.Peace-Action.org

Become a Peace Voter:
Take the Pledge Today!

Print the Pledge

to use
in your community.

Register to Vote

Listen to Air America Radio while reading today's news and views

Sign the ACLU's Petition against torture!

We demand our country back.

The Not Your Soldier Project gives youth the tools we need to stop the military invasion of our schools and our communities.

Not Your Soldier Action Camps bring together young people who are heavily targeted by military recruitment. At the camps, youth learn how to take action to fight military recruitment, the poverty draft, and the corporations that profit off of war.

In 2006, Not Your Soldier will be hosting a national camp for youth and adult allies.

>>Go to the Pick a Camp section to find out more!

If you're interested in hosting a regional Not Your Soldier gathering, find out more here.

Not Your Soldier National Days of Action are coordinated days of creative, non-violent direct action where youth take leadership and tell recruiters, "We are Not Your Soldiers!"

>>Sign up for our action alert e-mail list!

Parents: have questions? Check out Info for Parents, and our FAQ's to find out what the camps will be like.

Today's News and Views

Novak: Rove was a source in outing Plame

By PETE YOST, Associated Press Writer

44 minutes ago

Columnist Robert Novak said publicly for the first time Tuesday that White House political adviser Karl Rove was a source for his story outing the identity of CIA officer Valerie Plame.

In a column, Novak also says his recollection of his conversation with Rove differs from what the Rove camp has said.

"I have revealed Rove's name because his attorney has divulged the substance of our conversation, though in a form different from my recollection," Novak wrote. Novak did not elaborate.

A spokesman for Rove's legal team, Mark Corallo, said that Rove did not even know Plame's name at the time he spoke with Novak, that the columnist called Rove, not the other way around, and that Rove simply said he had heard the same information that Novak passed along to him regarding Plame.

"There was not much of a difference" between the recollections of Rove and Novak, said Corallo.

Novak said he is talking now because Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald told the columnist's lawyer that after 2 1/2 years his investigation of the CIA leak case concerning matters directly relating to Novak has been concluded.

Triggering the criminal investigation, Novak revealed Plame's CIA employment on July 14, 2003, eight days after her husband, White House critic and former U.S. Ambassador Joseph Wilson, accused the administration of manipulating prewar intelligence to exaggerate the Iraqi threat from weapons of mass destruction.

Novak's secret cooperation with prosecutors while maintaining a public silence about his role kept him out of legal danger and had the effect of providing protection for the Bush White House during the 2004 presidential campaign.

The White House denied Rove played any role in the leak of Plame's CIA identity and Novak, with his decision to talk to prosecutors, steered clear of potentially being held in contempt of court and jailed. Novak said he had declined to go public at Fitzgerald's request.

In a syndicated column to be released Wednesday, Novak says he told Fitzgerald in early 2004 that Rove and then-CIA spokesman Bill Harlow had confirmed information about Plame.

Contacted Tuesday night, Harlow declined to comment. But a U.S. intelligence official familiar with the matter denied that Harlow had been a confirming source for Novak on the story. The official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said Harlow repeatedly tried to talk Novak out of running the information about Plame and that Harlow's efforts did not in any way constitute confirming Plame's CIA identity. The official spoke on condition of anonymity because Harlow may end up being a witness in a separate part of Fitzgerald's investigation, the upcoming criminal trial of Vice President Dick Cheney's former chief of staff, I. Lewis Libby, on charges of perjury, obstruction and lying to the FBI.

In his column, Novak said he also told Fitzgerald about another senior administration official who originally provided him with information about Plame. Novak said he cannot publicly reveal the identity of that source even now.

"I have cooperated in the investigation while trying to protect journalistic privileges under the First Amendment and shield sources who have not revealed themselves," Novak said in his statement. "I have been subpoenaed by and testified to a federal grand jury. Published reports that I took the Fifth Amendment, made a plea bargain with the prosecutors or was a prosecutorial target were all untrue."

Rove's role in the scandal wasn't revealed until last summer when Time magazine reporter Matthew Cooper disclosed that Rove had leaked him the CIA identity of Wilson's wife. Cooper cooperated with prosecutors only after all his legal appeals were exhausted and he faced jail.

While Rove escaped indictment, Libby has been charged with lying about how he learned of the covert CIA officer's identity and what he told reporters about it.

On the Net:

Chicago Sun-Times report:

http://www.suntimes.com/output/news/cst-nws-leak11.html

July 11, 2006

What Changed on 9/11? A Radical, Extremist Cabal Decided to Use a Terrorist Attack for the Dismantling of Democracy

A BUZZFLASH EDITORIAL

Earlier this year, we had a chance to once again visit the World Trade Center site, which now has its pit partially filled in with the PATH train station for commuters taking the railway into Manhattan from New Jersey.

Is it more than 3,000 people who were killed in the 9/11 attack? Already numbers start to fade.

But, we do know this. After 9/11, all Americans were united against terrorism – and we had the sympathy of the world.

As we said, in an editorial within a few days after 9/11, the issue wasn’t whether or not one was against terrorism, it was how to effectuate a strategy that could best protect us from future terrorist attacks and ensure, through a multi-pronged approach, our national security.

The “war on terrorism” should have been just a part of an overall governmental/public partnership to protect our national security and improve our lives.

But as surely as four planes were hijacked on 9/11 -- in large part due to Bush negligence in alerting airports to take special precautions to prevent hijackings (see point one in this editorial) -- 9/11 was hijacked by egomaniacal men who saw themselves as “masters of the universe.” They were -- and are – arrogant, disdainful of democracy, and destructive in their decision making.

They used – and are still employing – the tactics of the demagogue to subjugate the American public. It is the tool of all tyrants, whatever their ideological bent. Whether Francisco Franco, Joseph Stalin, or Adolph Hitler, fear of the “other” and scapegoating becomes an essential tool of eliminating opposition ideas and democracy.

We were hijacked twice on 9/11 – once by terrorists, and once by our own one-party Republican government which has shamelessly used a horrible incident for a partisan thuggish suppression of our Constitutional rights. What the Bush Administration seeks to do is to use 9/11 and the threat of terrorism as a veneer under which to build a secret shadow government that has no accountability to the process of democracy.

Make no mistake about this (and the Democratic Leadership on Capitol Hill still doesn’t get what is really going on), there are surely terrorists in the world (there always have been), but there are also enemies within who are actively undermining the Constitution and the very concept of rule by the people. For the Cheneys of the world, there is no trust to be placed in the “rabble” of democracy.

Being at the World Trade Center site reminded us of how profoundly we are seeing a struggle for tyrannical power played out using the well-honed tools of fear. The Democratic leadership on the Hill is frightened to death to challenge the failed Bushevik “war on terror,” which has been blown totally out of proportion for the purposes of consolidating unchallengeable and unaccountable power.

The 800-pound gorilla in the room may appear to be Iraq, but it is really fascism, the “F” word no mainstream politician of either party dares to utter.

One of the miraculous occurrences of 9/11 was that a Revolutionary era church, St. Paul’s Chapel -- located on the eastern side of the street across from the WTC site -- remained unscathed by the catastrophe.

Today its ancient cemetery -- lying just across from the 9/11 pit -- is filled with flowers and tourists.

On the fence around the church, facing the 9/11 site, is a sign that says:

“Manhattan’s Oldest Public Building in Continuous Use
Witness to the Great Fire of 1776
Host to George Washington on Inauguration Day

And Survivor of the Terrorist Attacks on September 11, 2001”

The least we can do if St. Paul’s survived, with its pre-Revolutionary heritage, is to ensure that our Constitution survives.

For the Bush Administration to destroy the documents of our revolution – and the very concept of a Constitutional balance of powers and individual liberties – is, at the very least, to indicate that they are abdicating to the terrorists.

If “they hate us for our freedoms,” why is Bush giving into the terrorist and taking away our freedoms.

But the believers in Bushevism don’t really care much about terrorism. They care about using terrorism to amass powers that would change the very nature of the United States, turning it into a government not unlike the one we rebelled against in 1776, but with more Kafkesque and Orwellian powers.

Two things changed on September 11th: America was attacked from without, which set off an attack from the enemies of democracy within – the Bush Administration, the Republican Congress, spineless Democrats, and hack Republican judges.

St. Paul’s emerged unscathed from the 9/11 attack.

We are obligated to protect our Constitution, of nearly equal age, in the same manner.

There are some things 9/11 should never change: like freedom, liberty, transparency in government, and the rule of law.

A BUZZFLASH EDITORIAL

The politics of greed

Molly Ivins - Creators Syndicate

07.11.06 - AUSTIN, Texas -- I don't get it. What's the percentage in keeping the minimum wage at $5.15 an hour? After nine years? This is such an unnecessary and nasty Republican move. Congress has voted seven times to raise its own wages since last the minimum wage budged. Of course, Congress always raises its own salary in the dark of night, hoping no one will notice. But now it does the same with the minimum wage, quietly killing it.

Anyone who doesn't think this is a country where the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer needs to check the numbers -- this is Bush country, where a rising tide lifts all yachts.

According to the current issue of Mother Jones:

· One in four U.S. jobs pays less than a poverty-level income.

· Since 2000, the number of Americans living below the poverty line at any one time has risen steadily. Now, 13 percent -- 37 million Americans -- are officially poor.

· Bush's tax cuts (extended until 2010) save those earning between $20,000 and $30,000 an average of $10 a year, while those making $1 million are saved $42,700.

· In 2002, Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, compared those who point out such statistics as the one above to Adolph Hitler (surely he meant Stalin?).

· Bush has diverted $750 million to "healthy marriages" by shifting funds from social services, mostly childcare.

· Bush has proposed cutting housing programs for low-income people with disabilities by 50 percent.

A series of related stats -- starting with the news that two out of three new jobs are in the suburbs -- shows how the poor are further disadvantaged in the job hunt by lack of public or private transportation.

Meanwhile, for those who have been following the collapse of the pension system, please note a series in The Wall Street Journal by Ellen Schultz taking a hard look at executive pension obligations:

· "Benefits for executives now account for a significant share of pension obligations in the United States, an average of 8 percent (of large companies). Sometimes a company's obligation for a single executive's pension approaches $100 million."

· "These liabilities are largely hidden, because corporations don't distinguish them from overall pension obligations in their federal financial findings."

· "As a result, the savings that companies make by curtailing pensions of regular retirees -- which have totaled billions of dollars in recent years -- can mask a rising cost of benefits for executives."

· "Executive pensions, even when they won't be paid until years from now, drag down the earnings today. And they do so in a way that's disproportionate to their size, because they aren't funded with dedicated assets."

It seems to me that we've seen enough evidence over the years that the capitalist system is not going to be destroyed by an outside challenger like communism -- it will be destroyed by its own internal greed. Greed is the greatest danger as we develop an increasingly winner-take-all system. And voices like The Wall Street Journal's editorial page encourage this mentality by insisting that any form of regulation is bad. But for whom?

It is so discouraging to watch this country become less and less fair -- "justice for all" seems like an embarrassingly archaic tag. Republicans have rigged the "lottery of life" in this country in ways we don't even know about yet. The new bankruptcy law is unfair, and the new college loan rules are worse. The system has been stacked so that large corporations have an inside track over small businesses in getting government contracts. We won't see the full consequences of this mean and careless legislation for years, but it starting to affect us already.

Lieberman campaign files forms to run as petitioning candidate

By SUSAN HAIGH
AP Political Writer

July 10, 2006, 6:34 PM EDT

HARTFORD, Conn. -- Democratic U.S. Sen. Joe Lieberman filed paperwork Monday that will allow him to collect signatures to petition his way onto the November ballot if he loses an August primary.

Lieberman's campaign announced the move in an e-mail to reporters.

The three-term senator faces a tough Aug. 8 primary challenge from Greenwich businessman Ned Lamont. Lieberman, who has been criticized by fellow Democrats for his support of the war in Iraq and a perceived closeness with President Bush, is popular among many unaffiliated and Republican voters in Connecticut.

Lieberman also filed papers with the secretary of the state's office Monday to create a new party called Connecticut for Lieberman.

Marion Steinfels, Lieberman's campaign spokeswoman, said the 25 people who signed on to help Lieberman form the Connecticut for Lieberman party will oversee the petition drive.

"This group of people that formed this committee will be the ones handling this," she said. "The volunteers who are working for the campaign are continuing to work on the Aug. 8 primary. This will not in any way detract from winning that."

The list includes many Democratic activists from across the state.

Secretary of the State Susan Bysiewicz said Lieberman will be able to secure a higher position on the November ballot by creating a new party rather than petitioning his way on as an individual. Bysiewicz said Lieberman would be fifth on the ballot under the new party, compared with eighth or ninth as an individual.

He must collect 7,500 signatures by 4 p.m. Aug. 9, the day after the primary.

"It is certainly a very doable thing, but it will require some on-the-ground volunteer efforts," Bysiewicz said.

Tom Swan, Lamont's campaign manager, criticized Lieberman for taking out the petitions. Lamont has said an independent run by Lieberman will hurt Democrats.

"Senator Lieberman clearly understands that Ned Lamont's campaign continues to gather momentum," Swan said. "He does this from a position of weakness, where he looks like a desperate career politician attempting to cling to power."

Lieberman announced last week that he would begin collecting signatures to petition his way onto the ballot.

He said he is concerned about the predicted low voter turnout for the August primary and the fact Lamont is a multimillionaire who has dumped more than $2 million of his own money into the race so far. Lieberman himself amassed $6 million for the race as of May; new fundraising figures are due out this week.

"While I believe that I will win the Aug. 8 primary, I know there are no guarantees in elections," Lieberman said during a news conference in front of the state Capitol. Lieberman said he will remain a Democrat and plans to remain a part of the Senate Democratic caucus if re-elected.

His decision to potentially run as an independent candidate has put some well-known Democrats in a politically difficult position. While they are backing Lieberman in the primary, some have said both privately and publicly that they won't support his possible independent run should he lose in August.

Some national Democrats also fear that a Lieberman primary loss could distract from their efforts to win seats in states such as Pennsylvania, Montana, Missouri and Tennessee.

But U.S. Rep. John Lewis, a Democrat from Georgia, said Lieberman has his support no matter what happens in the primary. Lewis was in Hartford Monday with Lieberman and U.S. Rep. John Larson, D-Conn., discussing faith-based initiatives to fight youth violence.

"I stick with my friends," Lewis said. "He's going to win. You heard it from John Lewis. He's going to win."

AP Political Writer Susan Haigh has been covering the Connecticut statehouse and political scene since 1994.

The Top 10 Conservative Idiots, No. 251

July 10, 2006
Missile Command Edition

It's been a packed seven days for George W. Bush (1,2,3,5,7,9), who makes the list six times this week. Meanwhile, Melanie Morgan (4) wants to execute the editors of the New York Times, Rush Limbaugh (6) has some more questions to answer, Bill Frist (8) has apparently stopped practicing his love with gorillas, and Tony Snow (10) looks like an asshat. Don't forget the key!

George W. Bush

Last Tuesday - the 4th of July - North Korean dictator Kim Jong Il decided to shoot off some fireworks of his own. He launched a Taepodong II - a three-stage ballistic missile allegedly capable of reaching the West Coast of the United States, which crashed shortly after takeoff - along with several shorter-range missiles.

The Bush administration's response?

"We need to find the means to deny North Korea the financial means to buy missile technology or nuclear technology," U.S. envoy Christopher Hill told CNN in Seoul. "We really want to make sure that we're not allowing North Korea to go around and pick up technology or to trade in these components."

Yes, we certainly don't want to allow them the capability to build and launch an ICBM, do we?

Meanwhile Bush & Co. have been running around like chickens with their heads cut off, despite the fact that Kim Jong Il has been threatening to test-fire a missile for some time. According to Graham Allison, a former assistant secretary of Defense in the Clinton administration:

At a news conference Friday, President Bush was asked why, given North Korea's increasing nuclear capability, its refusal to talk and its July 4 missile launches, Americans shouldn't conclude that the U.S. policy toward North Korea is a failed one.

"Because it takes time to get things done," Bush replied.

Or not done, as the case may be. Bear in mind that Bush first railed against the "Axis of Evil" - Iran, Iraq, and North Korea - back in January 2002. Iran, Iraq, and North Korea. I must say our president has really succeeded spectacularly in all of those areas.

From the news conference:

Q Mr. President, if I could follow up, you say diplomacy takes time --

THE PRESIDENT: Yes, it does.

Q -- but it was four years ago that you labeled North Korea a member of the "axis of evil." And since then it's increased its nuclear arsenal, it's abandoned six-party talks and now these missile launches --

THE PRESIDENT: Let me ask you a question. It's increased it's -- that's an interesting statement: "North Korea has increased its nuclear arsenal." Can you verify that?

Q Well, intelligence sources say -- if you can -- if you'd like to dispute that, that's fine.

THE PRESIDENT: No, I'm not going to dispute, I'm just curious.

Curious George strikes again. According to Graham Allison:

The White House's desire to change the subject is understandable. Since Bush entered the Oval Office in January 2001, Kim's estimated stockpile of plutonium has quintupled.

The Bush administration is supposed to have unlimited expertise in the areas of foreign policy and world affairs, yet for some reason they're acting like it's Amateur Night at the Apollo. Can we please put the adults back in charge?

George W. Bush

Not to worry though - it appears that Our Great Leader isn't particularly concerned about current events, but is looking to the future. Appearing on Larry King Live last week, George told the world that, "When history looks back, I'd rather be judged as solving problems and being correct, rather than being popular."

Well he's certainly got the "not popular" bit down. But I guess if Bush wants to be judged on his problem-solving capabilities and "being correct" then that's fair enough. After all, what historian could possibly think badly of a president who allowed the greatest terrorist attack in history to happen on his watch, who completely fumbled the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, who started a war in Iraq that he couldn't finish, and who has allowed the situations in Iran and North Korea to get completely out of hand?

If Bush wants history to look back and judge him on solving problems and being correct rather than being popular, perhaps he should get started on that solving problems and being correct stuff.

George W. Bush and Dennis Hastert

I don't really have anything to say about this Associated Press photo. I just thought it was frickin' hilarious.

Want to see another?

Melanie Morgan

Treason! Sedition! For revealing details of a program which the Bush administration already announced publicly and then discussed publicly multiple times (see Idiots 250), the New York Times editors should be thrown in prison. Or, if you prefer, executed.

Last week right-wing radio talk show host Melanie Morgan said of Times editor Bill Keller, "If he were to be tried and convicted of treason, yes, I would have no problem with him being sent to the gas chamber."

That's the ticket. Because after all, freedom isn't free. Or something.

But while it may seem a little odd that the Times is taking the brunt of all this when the Los Angeles Times and Wall Street Journal also published reports about the money-tracking program on the same day, bear in mind that it all makes for good politicking during an election year. Hey everyone, pay no attention to our complete failure to deal with that "Axis of Evil" we spent several years beating our chests about - the New York Times editors are committing treason and should be sent to the gas chamber!

Not a very nice way of saying thank you to the newspaper which was mostly responsible for persuading the public to let Bush invade Iraq, is it?

George W. Bush

Disgraced Enron chief Ken "Kenny Boy" Lay went to meet his maker last week, and it wasn't long before the press wanted to know what Dubya thought of his best friend's demise. Unfortunately they had to first go through Tony Snow, who attempted to cover his boss's ass by confusing the hell out of everybody.

Q One other quick question. What has been the President's reaction to the death of Ken Lay?

MR. SNOW: I really haven't talked to him about it. I'll give you my own personal reaction, which is when somebody dies you leave behind those who grieve and I think they deserve our compassion. But I don't know, what do you think would be the appropriate thing to say?

Um, Tony... you're the press secretary. Reporters ask you questions and then you answer them. Not the other way round.

Q I don't know. I don't know him. The President was his friend, not me.

MR. SNOW: No, the President has described Ken Lay as an acquaintance, and many of the President's acquaintances have passed on during his time in office. Again, I think -- it's sort of an interesting question, but not answerable by me.

Aha - there it is! Ken Lay was an "acquaintance" of Bush, not a friend. (I won't go into detail again about the myriad connections between Ken Lay and the Bush family, but Robert Scheer has an excellent synopsis here.)

Our Great Leader couldn't duck for long though, and after bobbing up and down on a sea of gentle questions from Larry King, he must have been lulled into a false sense of security. "He's a good guy," said Bush on Larry King Live. A good guy? Well I guess... if you consider someone who was about to be sentenced to life in prison for conspiracy and fraud after bilking investors out of billions of dollars and screwing about 4,000 people out of their retirement savings a "good guy." Which Bush obviously does.

Then this exchange took place:

KING: Did you know him well, Mrs. Bush?

LAURA BUSH: I knew him. Not really well, but I did know him.

KING: Did you know his wife?

LAURA BUSH: And I know Linda and I'm sorry for her.

KING: Did you contact her?

LAURA BUSH: I haven't.

GEORGE BUSH: I haven't yet. I'm going to write her a letter at some point in time.

How times have changed. Why, it wasn't so long ago that Lay and Bush were writing letters to one another all the time about things like arthroscopic knee surgery, their birthdays, Christmas gifts, and Broadway musicals.

I'm sure it will be a great comfort to Mrs. Lay to know that her former dear friends George and Laura will get around to writing her a letter of condolence "at some point in time."

Rush Limbaugh

Questions continue to be raised about Rush Limbaugh's recent trip to the Dominican Republic. Why was he there? Who was he with? Why was he carrying a bunch of boner pills?

Now at least one of those questions can be answered: it turns out that Rush was traveling with four dudes, two of whom were producers of the Fox TV series "24" and one of whom was a Hollywood agent. So I guess that clears that up. But it does still leave other questions unanswered, such as: why did he need a bunch of boner pills on a trip to the Dominican Republic with an all-male group of Hollywood producer types?

I mean, it just seems like something that El Rushbo would have an absolute fit about - if someone else was caught doing it.

George W. Bush

Mission accomplished? Last week the CIA shut down the unit which has spent the better part of a decade hunting Osama bin Laden. According to Reuters:

The bin Laden unit, codenamed Alec Station, became less valuable as a separate operation as counterterrorism operations eliminated top al Qaeda operatives and the movement's focus shifted more to regional networks of militants, said the (U.S. intelligence) official, who spoke on condition of anonymity.

Wow, that certainly sounds like an odd way to fight the "War on Terror." So what did Our Great Leader have to say about this report at his press conference in Chicago last week?

Q You said some time ago that you wanted Osama bin Laden dead or alive. You later regretted the formulation, but maybe not the thought.

PRESIDENT BUSH: I regretted the formulation because my wife got on me for talking that way.

Q We suspected as much, sir. But the question I have -- (laughter) -- the question I have is, it appears that the CIA has disbanded the unit that was hunting him down. Is it no longer important to track him down?

BUSH: I -- you know, it's just an incorrect story. I mean, we got a -- we're -- we got a lot of assets looking for Osama bin Laden. So whatever you want to read in that story, it's just not true, period.

Oh, okay. I guess the CIA didn't shut down that unit after all then. Also, freedom is spreading in Iraq, the economy is spectacular, and nobody anticipated the breach of the levees.

Bill Frist

I noted back in Idiots 245 that Bill Frist had taken on an unusual side project: performing heart surgery on gorillas at the National Zoo in Washington DC. "The fact that we're working on the edge of the unknown is fun," he said.

So knowing Frist's previous reputation for, er, treating animals, should we make anything of this recent report by the Washington Post?

A mature male gorilla died yesterday at the National Zoo -- the second such death in the past three days.

M'geni Mopaya, known as "Mopie," was being introduced to the family group of gorillas that had been headed by Kuja, the gorilla who died Saturday.

(snip)

The cause of Mopie's death was not known, Long said, and final results of an animal autopsy, which began yesterday, could take several weeks.

She said Mopie had cardiomyopathy, a heart condition that is a leading cause of death among captive male gorillas. But as far as the zoo knew, she said, Mopie's condition had not reached the stage of heart failure, and he did not show listlessness or other symptoms.

Just sayin'...

George W. Bush

Last week Our Great Leader made an "unscheduled" stop at a Dunkin' Donuts in Northern Virginia where he chatted with customers and waved cups of coffee around for the cameras.

What, you don't believe that George W. Bush would show up at a donut shop without telling anyone beforehand? Come now, surely it's common knowledge that the president just loves making spontaneous public appearances and mingling with everyday Americans.

According to the Washington Post, Bush stopped by the Dunkin' Donuts "to promote a program to help verify that workers are in the country legally." Skeptics, however, note that the timing of Bush's visit just happens to coincide with a "national push" by Dunkin' Donuts to "rapidly expand to nearly 15,000 US locations by 2020," according to the Boston Globe.

But why would George care about giving free advertising to Dunkin' Donuts? I mean, I know that an image like this is certainly very helpful to them in terms of publicity, but what's in it for him?

Well funnily enough it turns out that Dunkin' Donuts was bought, in part, by George's daddy's company the Carlyle Group just four months ago. Perhaps that explains why he seems to be holding the cup just so.

Tony Snow

And finally, it's time for part two of our occasional series which I've decided to call "Pictures Of Tony Snow Wearing Something On His Head That Makes Him Look Like An Asshat." For those of you who missed last week's edition, here's a recap:

Now for this week's entry:

If you have a picture of Tony Snow wearing something on his head that makes him look like an asshat, send it to me at earlg@democraticunderground.com .

See you next week!

-- EarlG

Jen Sorensen

07.10.06

Issue #1185(51), Tuesday, July 11, 2006

OPINION

American Dream

By Chris Floyd

In the mystic haze of midsummer, a most unlikely Oberon stepped forth last week to fling a spray of fairy light across the murk, rousing the ill-enchanted sleepers with the hope that dawn had finally come again. But as the magic glow fades, the spell-struck victims will likely find they are still caught in a curse of perpetual night.

We speak of course of the U.S. Supreme Court decision that struck down the ludicrous and lawless “military tribunals” concocted by President George W. Bush to serve as meat grinders for the captives in his War on Terror. Led by the sprightly 86-year-old Justice John Paul Stevens, a narrow court majority delivered a stinging rebuke to Bush’s assumption of imperial powers over the past five years, clearly rejecting the fundamental principle underlying the Crawford Caligula’s foul misrule: that the president’s unbridled will is the law.

The ruling has been hailed as a “victory for democracy,” the “light at the end of the tunnel,” a “turning point” in the long struggle to reclaim the republic from the usurping junta of the Bush regime. But we have seen these lights before, and watched them fade. All the previous “turning points” — scandals, atrocities, judicial rebuffs, investigations, convictions — have only led to more depredations; every seeming defeat of unlawful power becomes instead a springboard for its further advancement. There is no reason to think it will be any different this time.

To be sure, Stevens and his allies fought a valiant rear-guard action on behalf of liberty. They could have restricted their response to the narrow technical points at issue in the case, but instead they took a broad scythe to the rank undergrowth of legal perversion spawned by the White House and its chief constitutional corrupter, David Addington, the ruthless vizier to Vice President Dick Cheney.

As The New Yorker reports, all laws now pass through the hands of this unelected factotum, who feverishly screens them for any possible encroachments on presidential power — then writes the “signing statements” that Bush appends to every major piece of legislation, declaring that he will follow the new law, or not, as it suits him.

“I’m the decider,” as Bush likes to say in his cretinous playground patois. But it is Addington and Cheney who have sown the noxious weeds of tyranny that Bush so happily grazes upon.

So there was rich irony in seeing their malevolent system chastised by Stevens, a conservative Republican whose 1975 appointment by President Gerald Ford was certainly handled by Ford’s powerful chief of staff: an ambitious apparatchik named Dick Cheney. And the Stevens decision would indeed be a landmark ruling, a return to sanity — if we were still in an era where the institutions of American government and society were actually functional, and officeholders felt bound by law. But if there is no political will in the American establishment to enforce the ruling, it will be nothing more than a pretty ornament for the republic’s coffin.

And where does that will exist? Not in Congress, not in the media, not in the streets — and certainly not in the confused, craven Democratic opposition. Yet the true nature of the regime’s wide-ranging war on liberty has been glaringly obvious for years. We’ve been writing here about Bush’s power grab since November 2001, when we noted that he had given himself the right to order the killing or incarceration of anyone on earth whom he arbitrarily deemed a terrorist — or even a terrorist suspect. This was reported openly at the time, with approval from the gung-ho corporate media and the U.S. political establishment, with record-breaking poll numbers for Bush and with nary a peep from the Democrats. The first press reports of tortured captives quickly followed, again without controversy.

Indeed, for all its reputed obsession with secrecy, the Bush regime has been remarkably open about its usurpations. “Extrajudicial killing,” torture, indefinite detention, mass surveillance, defiance of court rulings and Congress, employment of death squads, an unprovoked war of aggression — all have been carried out openly, readily apparent to anyone with access to mainstream media sources. That the Supreme Court has only now challenged the essence of Bush’s claim to authoritarian power is poignant testimony to how deep the rot of tyranny has spread.

Bush’s reaction to the ruling is more evidence of the decay. After a vague, haughty promise to “look at the findings” — rather than simply obey them, as the law requires — Bush declared: “One thing I’m not going to do, though, is I’m not going to jeopardize the safety of the American people. People have got to understand that.” Thus, in his mind, the circular reasoning that forms the core of his authoritarian philosophy remains intact: Any action that he arbitrarily declares necessary to ensure “the safety of the American people” cannot be restrained by laws or courts.

Already, the lickspittle, lock-step Congress is preparing to belch forth laws to retroactively legalize past Bush crimes and countenance future offenses.

As legal scholar Mark Garber notes, this will likely satisfy at least one of the court’s wavering moderates when the next test of Bush’s tyranny comes around, sinking the razor-thin majority for liberty — which will soon disappear in any case when the ancient Stevens shuffles off this mortal coil. His bold stroke for freedom was magic indeed, but it may prove, in the corrupted currents of this world, to be such stuff as dreams are made on.

Home