Bush Hires Fox News Commentator

If anyone needed proof that Fox News was a Republican mouthpiece, President Bush just delivered it by hiring Fox News commentator Tony Snow to replace Scott McClellan as White House press secretary. While my first thought was that it makes sense for the Bush Administration to hire someone from Fox News (since anyone from Fox is practically on the payroll already), my second thought concerned Tony Snow's credentials. What in the world made the Bushies think of Tony Snow?

The Conservatives are spinning this as proof that President Bush is willing to shake up his staff and make needed changes by going outside of his usual cabal of Bush-worshippers. These opinions are delivered without the apparent irony of President Bush hiring a Fox News commentator and considering him to be an outsider.

Well, Tony Snow is not the outsider that Conservatives are making him out to be. He served as a speechwriter and deputy assistant for media affairs for President George H.W. Bush from 1991 to 1993. Are we to believe that's unrelated?

Honestly, I don't think there's much of a story here. I could care less who the White House moutpiece is. But I'm getting a little tired of hearing the Republicans trying to spin this as proof that President Bush is trying to bring someone into the White House who will have credibility. I don't want to beat a dead horse here, but he hired a guy from Fox News!

They get that credibility bit from the fact that Tony Snow has been critical of President Bush. However, you have to look at that in context. Snow has been critical of Bush for diverging from the true Conservative path, not for being the inept, war-mongering idiot that everyone else criticizes him for being. It's hardly criticism for a Conservative commentator to lament that the President is not being conservative enough. And it hardly gives him credibility.

What a strange world we live in.

It makes perfect sense for me that President Bush should hire someone from Fox News. After all, the Bush Administration and Fox News have a lot in common. Both of them are operating within an artificial reality of their own making that is not related in any way, shape or form to that annoying reality that the rest of us have to deal with.

- Watch Alert archived post

Tell the World: Torture is Un-American

If you agree with me that torture, indefinite detention and secret government kidnapping are un-American, I think you’ll be interested in a petition that I just signed.

These practices should not represent the United States of America. But today, two years after the truth was exposed about government-sponsored torture and abuse, the U.S. has failed to reverse the policies that led to this abuse -- and has yet to hold a single high-ranking official responsible.

After the horrors of World War II, our leaders helped draft universal principles that prohibit torture and protect human rights. I hope you join me in defending that legacy by signing the petition and speaking out against torture.

Please join with thousands of others and sign the petition today: http://action.aclu.org/tortureisunamerican


Thanks.

Wicasta Lovelace

- Watch Alert archived post
- Original Article

A 4-star Defense of the Republic

While on the road, I've recently run into a lot of well-meaning but confused Conservatives who are of the opinion that the generals who recently criticized Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and called for his resignation are part of some kind of conspiracy to undermine American democracy, and are attempting to assert military control of our civilian government. Most of these people are surprised to learn that these generals are all retired, and as such have honored the very system they're accused of undermining by not speaking out until after they had left the military and had returned to civilian life.

It always amazes me that anyone in the military who criticizes anyone in the Bush Administration (a collection of individuals whose collective military experience could be summed up in a few paragraphs) is immediately portrayed as undermining America itself and its “War on Terror ©,” while any military personnel who agrees with the Administration and speaks out to that effect is trotted before the cameras and hailed as a true American hero.

With that in mind, I was delighted to discover an article by Rosa Brooks in the L.A. Times. She sums up everything that I've been thinking, and does so in a way that simply makes sense. I've actually thought about making copies of this article and keeping them with me so that I could just hand them out to whatever clueless Conservative I came across whose perceptions of this issue come straight from the propaganda unit of Fox News.

I've included the article below in case you might want to do this, as well.

Rosa Brooks:
A 4-star defense of the republic
April 21, 2006

WHEN SIX recently retired generals criticized Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld's handling of the Iraq war and urged his resignation, the Bush administration reacted as if the generals had announced an impending military coup. Within days, administration loyalists were suggesting that the generals had been disloyal not merely to Rumsfeld but to American democracy itself.

The dissenting generals seemed almost surprised by the speed and savagery of the administration's counteroffensive. Maybe they had assumed that their combat records and decades of service would protect them. Or maybe they had been lulled into a false sense of security by the administration's floundering Iraq policies and assumed that Rumsfeld and his White House backers were just too distracted and incompetent to go after a few courteous, highly decorated critics. But the generals should have known that this administration can be ferociously competent when there's something really important — like President Bush's poll numbers — at stake.

On the right, the key talking point in the War Against the Generals quickly emerged: “Civilian control of the military.” It was an effective line of attack, and so clever that even many who ought to have known better were suckered. The Washington Post editorial board on Tuesday, for instance, fell for it hook, line and sinker, worrying that the retired generals were threatening “the essential democratic principle of military subordination to civilian control…. If [the generals] are successful in forcing Mr. Rumsfeld's resignation, they will set an ugly precedent.”

They even had me nodding along there for a few minutes. After all, every student of recent history knows that if you dilute civilian control of the military, you end up with fascism or a Latin American-style military junta. Because constant security threats are necessary to maintain the power and credibility of a military regime, a nation that lacks civilian control of the military gets ensnared in unending, pointless wars, often against an increasingly vaguely defined threat. Gradually, the broader society becomes militarized. Dissenters are denounced as cowards or traitors, and domestic surveillance becomes common. Secret military courts and detention systems begin to supplant the civilian judicial system. Detainees get tortured, and some end up mysteriously dead after interrogation.

We definitely wouldn't want that kind of regime to control the United States, would we?

IT WAS AT THIS POINT that I got the joke — because, dear reader, we're already well on the way to having that kind of regime. If Rumsfeld thought he could get away with calling himself Il Generalissimo, don't you think he'd do so in a heartbeat?

In the looking-glass world the Bush administration has brought us, it's the civilians in the White House and the Pentagon who have been eager to embrace the values normally exemplified by military juntas, while many uniformed military personnel have struggled to insist on values that are supposed to characterize democratic civil society.

Iraq is only one of the many issues on which military personnel have stood up against foolish or immoral administration policies. In 2003, the three generals and one admiral who collectively head the JAG Corps of the various services wrote strongly worded internal memos opposing the administration's authorization of interrogation techniques that border on or constitute torture. Navy Rear Adm. Michael Lohr, for instance, condemned the techniques as “inconsistent with our most fundamental values.” In January 2005, five retired generals filed an amicus brief in a case before the Supreme Court opposing the administration's argument that suspects tried by military commissions are not entitled to the protections of the Geneva Convention. Many more examples could be cited.

The claim that the six dissenting generals are betraying the principle of civilian control over the military is both silly and sinister. It's silly because polite, reasoned criticism from retired generals is just free speech, a very far cry from “forcing” the Defense secretary out. And it's sinister because civilian control is a means of safeguarding democracy, not an end in itself. When that gets forgotten, the phrase becomes just another way to stifle dissent.

Military officers must obey all lawful commands and refrain from using “contemptuous words” about their civilian leaders. But when officers take the military oath, they also pledge to “support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic, [and] bear true faith and allegiance to the same.”

That's a hard oath, because bearing “true faith” to the Constitution requires military personnel to speak out, regardless of the cost, when they think our civilian leaders have gone beyond the pale. Both our democracy and the lives of the soldiers who fight in our name depend on it. If officers remain silent when our military policies go terribly wrong, there's little the rest of us can do to set things right again.

- Watch Alert archived post
- Original Article

Gangster Government

Thanks to Janis Page for bringing this to my attention. This article sums up the outrageous nature of what Bush & Co. have done better than any other article I've seen. I've posted it to the archives because I believe it may very well be prescient.

Gangster Government
A Leaky President Runs Afoul of ‘Little Rico’

A BUZZFLASH GUEST CONTRIBUTION
by Greg Palast

Exclusive to BuzzFlash.com

It's a crime. No kidding. But the media has it all wrong. As usual, ‘Scooter’ Libby finally outed ‘Mr. Big,’ the perpetrator of the heinous disclosure of the name of secret agent Valerie Plame. It was the President of United States himself -- in conspiracy with his Vice-President. Now the pundits are arguing over whether our war-a-holic President had the legal right to leak this national security information. But, that's a fake debate meant to distract you.

OK, let's accept the White House alibi that releasing Plame's identity was no crime. But if that's true, they've committed a bigger crime: Bush and Cheney knowingly withheld vital information from a grand jury investigation, a multimillion dollar inquiry the perps themselves authorized. That's akin to calling in a false fire alarm or calling the cops for a burglary that never happened -- but far, far worse. Let's not forget that in the hunt for the perpetrator of this non-crime, reporter Judith Miller went to jail.

Think about that. While Miller sat in a prison cell, Bush and Cheney were laughing their sick heads off, knowing the grand jury testimony, the special prosecutor's subpoenas and the FBI's terrorizing newsrooms were nothing but fake props in Bush's elaborate charade, Cheney's Big Con.

On February 10, 2004, our not-so-dumb-as-he-sounds President stated, “Listen, I know of nobody -- I don't know of anybody in my administration who leaked classified information. If somebody did leak classified information, I'd like to know it, and we'll take the appropriate action. And this investigation is a good thing. ...And if people have got solid information, please come forward with it.”

Notice Bush's cleverly crafted words. He says he can't name anyone who leaked this “classified“ info -- knowing full well he'd de-classified it. Far from letting Bush off the hook, it worsens the crime. For years, I worked as a government investigator and, let me tell you, Bush and Cheney withholding material information from the grand jury is a felony. Several felonies, actually: abuse of legal process, fraud, racketeering and, that old standby, obstruction of justice.

If you or I had manipulated the legal system this way, we'd be breaking rocks on a chain gang. We wouldn't even get a trial -- most judges would consider this a “fraud upon the court” and send us to the slammer in minutes using the bench's power to administer instant punishment for contempt of the judicial system.

Why'd they do it? The White House junta did the deed for the most evil of motives: to hoodwink the public during the 2004 election campaign, to pretend that evil anti-Bush elements were undermining the Republic, when it was the Bush element itself at the center of the conspiracy. (Notably, elections trickery also motivated Richard Nixon's “plumbers” to break into the Watergate, then the Democratic Party campaign headquarters.)

Let me draft the indictment for you as I would have were I still a government gumshoe:

“Perpetrator Lewis Libby (alias, ‘Scooter’) contacted Miller; while John Doe 1 contacted perpetrators' shill at the Washington Post, Bob Woodward, in furtherance of a scheme directed by George Bush (alias ‘The POTUS’) and Dick Cheney (alias, ‘The Veep’) to release intelligence information fraudulently proffered as ‘classified,’ and thereinafter, knowingly withheld material evidence from a grand jury empanelled to investigate said disclosure. Furthermore, perpetrator ‘The POTUS’ made material statements designed to deceive investigators and knowingly misrepresent his state of knowledge of the facts.”

Statements aimed at misleading grand jury investigators are hard-time offenses. It doesn't matter that Bush's too-clever little quip was made to the press and not under oath. I've cited press releases and comments in the New York Times in court as evidence of fraud. By not swearing to his disingenuous statement, Bush gets off the perjury hook, but he committed a crime nonetheless, “deliberate concealment.”

Here's how the law works (and hopefully, it will). The Bush gang's use of the telephone in this con game constituted wire fraud. Furthermore, while presidents may leak (“declassify”) intelligence information, they may not obstruct justice; that is, send a grand jury on a wild goose chase. Under the ‘RICO’ statute (named after the Edward G. Robinson movie mobster, ‘Little Rico’), the combination of these crimes makes the Bush executive branch a “racketeering enterprise.”

So, book'm, Dan-o. Time to read The POTUS and The Veep their rights.

After setting their bail (following the impeachments and removals, of course), a judge will have a more intriguing matter to address. The RICO law requires the Feds to seize all “ill-gotten gains” of a racketeering enterprise, even before trial. Usually we're talking fast cars and diamond bling. But in this case, the conspirators' purloined booty includes a stolen election and a fraudulently obtained authorization for war. I see no reason why a judge could not impound the 82d Airborne as “fruits of the fraud” -- lock, stock and gun barrels -- and bring the boys home.

And if justice is to be done we will will also have to run yellow tape across the gates at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue -- “CRIME SCENE - DO NOT ENTER” -- and return the White House to its rightful owners, the American people, the victims of this gangster government.

A BUZZFLASH GUEST CONTRIBUTION

Former racketeering investigator Greg Palast is author of “ARMED MADHOUSE: Dispatches from the Front Lines of the Class War,” to be released in June.

- Watch Alert archived post
- Original Article

All the President's Leaks

I've been trying to sum up everything that I've wanted to say about the issues surrounding recent revelations that President Bush and Vice-President Cheney declassified certain documents to discredit opponents of the Iraq invasion, and most specifically the Administration's case for war. Well, along comes E.J. Dionne Jr., who sums it all up in an article I found in the Washington Post.

Mr. Dionne says;

All the President's Leaks

By E. J. Dionne Jr.
Tuesday, April 11, 2006; Page A21

What's amazing about the defenses offered for President Bush in the Valerie Plame leak investigation is that they deal with absolutely everything except the central issue: Did Bush know a lot more about this case than he let on before the 2004 elections?

But first, let's offer full credit to the Bush spin operation for working so hard and so effectively to change the subject.

The news was the court filing by Special Counsel Patrick J. Fitzgerald reporting that Bush, through Vice President Cheney, had authorized I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby to leak sensitive intelligence information in July 2003 to discredit claims made by former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV.

Wilson had fired a direct shot at the White House's rationale for the war in Iraq by saying the administration had distorted intelligence concerning Saddam Hussein's supposed efforts to obtain nuclear materials. The threat that Hussein might go nuclear was an emotional centerpiece of the administration's case for war. Condoleezza Rice, then Bush's national security adviser, made the case with great dramatic effect on Sept. 8, 2002: “We don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud.”

The president's defenders want you to think that when it comes to leaking, every president does it. Why should Bush be held to a different standard? Sen. Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.) told CNN on Sunday that the Bush administration was innocently asking itself, “How do we get the full story out there?”

Besides, since the president can authorize the declassification of anything he chooses to declassify, he can't be involved in anything untoward. “This was not a leak,” Joseph diGenova, a top Republican lawyer, told the New York Sun's Josh Gerstein. “This was an authorized disclosure.” Ah, yes, it depends on what the meaning of the word “leak” is. That sounds familiar, doesn't it?

These arguments merely distract attention from why Fitzgerald's disclosure was so important. When a fuss was kicked up in the fall of 2003 about the leaking of the name of Wilson's wife, former CIA operative Valerie Plame, to the media earlier in the year, the president spoke and acted as if he knew nothing and was incensed that any leaking was going on in his administration.

In its issue of Oct. 13, 2003, Time magazine quoted Bush as saying: “Listen, I know of nobody -- I don't know of anybody in my administration who leaked classified information.” Then the magazine's writers made an observation that turns out to be prescient: “Bush,” they wrote, “seemed to emphasize those last two words as if hanging on to a legal life preserver in choppy seas.”

The key words here are classified information. Did Bush at the time he made that statement know perfectly well that Cheney and Libby were involved with the leak, but that it didn't involve “classified information” because the president himself had authorized them to act? Talk about a legalistic defense.

Could it be that Bush -- heading into what he knew would be a difficult election -- was creating the impression of wanting the full story out when he already knew what most of the story was?

Which leads to another question: What exactly did Attorney General John Ashcroft know when he recused himself from the leak investigation? Did he know the investigation was getting dangerously close to Bush, Cheney, Libby and White House senior political adviser Karl Rove?

In announcing Fitzgerald's appointment on Dec. 30, 2003, Deputy Attorney General James Comey said that Ashcroft, “in an abundance of caution, believed that his recusal was appropriate based on the totality of the circumstances and the facts and evidence developed at this stage of the investigation.” What were the “facts” and the “evidence” on which Ashcroft acted? Did the administration consciously consider if passing off the investigation to someone else would delay the day of reckoning to beyond the 2004 election? And, yes, what exactly did Bush tell Fitzgerald and his staff when they questioned him on June 24, 2004? What had Cheney told Fitzgerald earlier?

The most heartening sign that all the spin in the world will not allow the administration to evade such questions was Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter's statement on Fox News Sunday that “there has to be a detailed explanation precisely as to what Vice President Cheney did, what the president said to him, and an explanation from the president as to what he said so that it can be evaluated.” Specter, a Republican and a former district attorney in Philadelphia, is just the right man to take the lead in breaking the spin cycle.

- Watch Alert archived post
- Original Article

Honk If You Love Bush/Cheney

This is a bit personal, but I wanted to relate a story. I just saw something on the highway that made me think about how sickeningly the Conservatives and Republicans have twisted everything.

There was a mini-convoy of three cars, each with lettering in the windows. One said “bringing our Marine home.” They all said something like that. The last one said “honk if you love USMC.” I respect this kid and his commitment to this country, so I was going to toot my air horn and wave. Then I saw the bumper sticker and the “&” in front of it.

So the message read “honk if you love USMC ... & Bush/Cheney.”

Well, I couldn't bring myself to toot my horn then. I support the troops, but I cannot in good conscience show support for the neo-con megalomaniacs in the White House. Here this young Marine was returning home, probably from Iraq or Afghanistan, and was deserving of my welcome. But someone couldn't resist turning his homecoming into a political statement. How typically Republican.

I decided to toot my horn anyway. I didn't care if it meant that someone in that caravan thought it meant that I also supported Bush and Cheney. But by then they were out of range.

It saddened me to think that the Republicans have so twisted the political discourse in this country that I can't thank that young Marine for his service without also tacitly approving of the Republican agenda. And if I don't show support for or I criticize the Republican agenda, then I am not supporting that young Marine.

I wonder if any of the fine men and women in the Service, who are in Iraq trying to help a struggling new democracy to its feet, have any idea what the Republicans are doing to our democracy at home.

- Watch Alert archived post

Republicans Spin Tom Delay's Exit

The Republicans are nervously spinning Tom DeLay's sudden withdrawal from his re-election campaign in Texas. Essentially they're saying that it's a good thing that he's dropping out, because those nasty Democrats have been harassing Poor Ol’ Tom and making up nasty things about him.

Nevermind that Tom DeLay was admonished three times by the House ethics committee (which was predominantly Republican), that he had to resign as House majority leader because he was indicted on conspiracy charges in a campaign finance investigation in Texas, that two key DeLay staffers (one being Tony Rudy, his former deputy chief of staff) and lobbyist Jack Abramoff (whom DeLay had strong ties to) plead guilty in a federal corruption investigation, or that he helped create a symbiotic relationship between the House Republicans and Washington's lobbying community, securing a steady stream of donations for his members and friendly legislation for business interests. His “K Street” connections also invited scrutiny and criticism that those with issues before Congress had to pay to play.

Poor Ol’ Tom. Those wacky Democrats are making much out of nothing.

House Republican leaders proclaimed that there's going to be a fresh start for their legislative agenda, and vowed to act quickly to reform ethics laws. This all came after the news that DeLay is planning to resign his seat. They're hoping people will buy the inference that “while Poor Ol’ Tom did nothing wrong, we’re not like him, really.”

My first question was this: How many times can they promise ethics reform? Their last ethics reform was to change the laws of the House so that Tom DeLay would not have to resign as House majority leader when he was facing admonishment on ethics violations. Then they appointed a bunch of Republicans to the House ethics committe who almost all had ties to Tom DeLay.

House majority leader John Boehner, an Ohio Republican who succeeded DeLay in that position, said Republicans are responding to recent scandals in Washington. “We will take steps necessary to plug those areas where problems have erupted,” he said. He also said that ethics reform will be merely the first of many initiatives this spring, including a new fiscally responsible budget plan. Translation? It's the new, improved Republican party! We're not like Tom DeLay! Or, er, those other Republicans who are in trouble for ethics violations and criminal conspiracy. Can't we all just get along?

Of course, Tom DeLay hasn't been silent on this. He said, “I refuse to allow liberal Democrats an opportunity to steal this seat with a negative, personal campaign. The times are too grave to waste even two years in the life of this nation -- and allow even one more vote for their agenda of pessimism and failure.”

It would surprise me if DeLay's statement didn't illicit a collective giggle from those around him. For one thing, only DeLay could think that talking about his well documented ethics violations is unfair, while noting no apparent irony that his nickname is “The Hammer” because he's never shied away from dirty politics.

In short, in true Republican fashion, the logic is that if a Democrat was to win DeLay's seat in Texas, it would not be because he or she was elected by the people of that district, but because the Democrats' “stole this seat.” Seems like the Republicans thought the same thing in Ohio during the presidential election, when those nasty Democrats were trying to steal the election by trying to get people to vote.

President Bush, who spoke with DeLay about his decision Monday afternoon, predicted that Republicans won't suffer long-term consequences from the possible ethics violations of some of the party's members. “My own judgment is ... that our party will continue to succeed because we're the party of ideas,” the president said.

I'm sure that led several people present to wonder, typically, what the hell the president was talking about. Oh, wait. Now that I think of it, the Republicans are the party of ideas. They've certainly come up with a lot of great ideas about how to get around annoying ethics and campaigns laws. Maybe that's what he meant.

The problem is, you don't just move on from people like Tom DeLay. This man was firmly in control of the House for years. DeLay's ties to his fellow Republicans are too deep to remove his imprint from the GOP caucus simply by his resignation. Representative Martin T. Meehan, a Lowell Democrat, said, “The next election will be a referendum on the system he set up. He's a symbol of everything that's wrong with Congress today.”

DeLay's money machine flowed to House members across the country, and his “K Street Project” of pressing lobbyists to hire Republicans has left him with many close allies in Washington, said David Donnelly, campaign director of the Public Campaign Action Fund, a nonpartisan group that works to reduce the influence of money on politics.

“I don't think you can simply remove DeLay from the picture and somehow have corruption removed from the equation,” Donnelly said. “Corruption in Congress goes beyond one man.”

Poor Ol’ Tom continues to proclaim his innocence on those criminal charges he is facing in connection with those alleged fund-raising irregularities. And most of DeLay's Republican colleagues continue to stand behind him publicly; House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert praised him as a “most effective“ member of House leadership. Boehner echoed those sentiments, calling it “unfortunate” and “sad”" that Poor Ol’ Tom, the Texas Republican, felt it was necessary to resign his House seat. He added that the accusations that have swirled around DeLay and other Republicans won't have an impact on congressional races this fall. I'm surprised they don't start singing “When I Wish Upon A Star.”

But Julian Zelizer, a congressional historian at Boston University, said DeLay's resignation means that Republicans can no longer question the credibility of Democrats' corruption charges. The scandal involving Abramoff, who mostly supported Republicans, could still ensnare other House members, he said.

DeLay “bowing out at any time is a huge loss for Republicans,” Zelizer said. “It's a symbolic confirmation that the corruption charges are as serious as Democrats are saying.”

For myself, I think this is all a cause for celebration. Yes, it's certainly true that this was a political move. There's no way DeLay could have been re-elected to his seat in Texas. Recent polls showed that DeLay had, at best, a 50/50 chance of being re-elected in his home district, in a race that should have been a cakewalk. Removing himself from the race was one way in which DeLay hoped to rob Democrats of a chance of winning his seat, believing, in his arrogance, that it was only because of the accusations against him that a Democrat had a chance. Never mind recent polls that indicate that if the Congressional elections were held today, the Democrats would retake the House.

But it's a good thing that this snake has been run out of political office. Tom DeLay is at the very center of this “culture of corruption” that the Democrats keep talking about. He's the one who set up the money machine to extort or cajol money out of Washington lobbyists and other groups into the pockets of Republicans. It was DeLay who created the culture in which Washington politics became “pay to play,” taking full financial advantage of Republican control of Congress to perfect the buying and selling of political influence in Washington. All of which was designed to benefit the Republicans.

If we are edging ever closer to a one-party system of government in the United States, it's because of corrupt hypocrites like Tom DeLay, who never misses a chance to talk about being a born-again Christian, while passing back and forth lobbyists' money behind his back. He is the worse form a trash, and our democracy is better off without him.

All I can say is, “Don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out.”

- Watch Alert archived post