As a side note, I have a somewhat lengthy article in the current edition of The American Conservative magazine (only the Table of Contents is online). The article explores the differences between rational thought and partisan allegiance, and in particular examines the complete abandonment of conservative political principles by supporters of George Bush, for whom allegiance to the leader and the party have assumed absolute paramounce.
Finally, someone at The Washington Post appears to be an admirer of Us Magazine, or People Teen, or something, and they are offering a new (?) feature entitled "Off Hours" which, as they put it, "featur(es)Washington's top decision makers in their off hours -- outside the office and inside their lives."
Today's version contains vapid and oh-so-humanizing details about Attorney General Alberto Gonzaels' not-at-all-contrived-or-self-conscious interactions with his son and wife, but it also contains this significant revelation:
But as Gonzales pumped up a hill, he said he wasn't troubled by critics. He was troubled by terrorists. "I stay up at night," he said, rounding a corner near the water. "I read the reports. Sometimes I ask myself, when will it end?"
The river rippled away from the shore. "The answer is -- it probably never will."
That is an extremely important yet virtually never acknowledged truth revealed by the selfless Gonzales (who doesn't care at all about criticism of him, only about the dangers posed by terrorists). The "war" on terrorism -- which justifies everything from lawbreaking to expanded presidential powers across the board, and which means that we should be muted in our criticisms of the Commander-in-Chief (when we are allowed to voice them at all) -- is expected to end . . . right around never.
All of those Bush defenders who are constantly justifying radical changes to our country based on this "war" are not advocating short-term, temporary or finite changes. They seek fundamental and permanent changes to our system of government, and to transform the United States into a country that is in a state of war that literally has no end. That is not news to many people, but it is still striking to see it acknowledged so nakedly and starkly as Gonazles, likely unguarded by the family puff piece, admitted to it here.
"No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare." - Madison, anticipating Orwell by about one hundred fifty years
ReplyDeleteWhat I've become growing concerned with is that Gonzales, speaking for the administration, seems to think the AUMF is the equivalent of the invocation of Article 48 of the Weimar Republic's Constitution.
Another "revelation" is the admission of "extreme fear", which I suspect is the driving factor for the Bush people as well as the "silent Democrats". I think I understand this because I had the same for a while after the attacks. Ironically Bush eclipsed the terrorists, so their actions seem harmless now in comparison.
ReplyDelete"We've always been at war with Eastasia..."
ReplyDeleteI don't know why anyone would be surprised by this. Bush was saying even back when he was governor that if he got to be President, he aspired to be a war president... I can't remember the exact quote, but it was something to do with "they have all the fun".
ReplyDeleteAs an avid WEST WING fan, I find Bush's administration rewarding for one reason -- it shows me the real world consequences of a Presidency unfettered by checks and balances. When you watch WEST WING, all you wish for is that Bartlett would grow a backbone, dismiss that rotten corrupt Congress, and start governing by fiat of Executive Order. It's the Wise Emperor fantasy, and we all feel its tug somewhere inside us... but Dubya is absolute living and horrendous proof of what happens when those fantasies come true. We don't get some all wise Yoda figure guiding us all to a higher, better destiny. We get Evil Gomer Pyle, wrecking the world, until someone finally takes his crowbar away from him.
I wonder who that someone is going to be, and if they're going to be in time...
Highlander:
ReplyDeleteEvil Gomer Pyle?
Too effin' funny.
Glenn, do you know if the book will become available outside the US on amazon as well (specifically Europe)? Lakoffs book eventully did, though it took several months - however the shipping charges (and ironicall delivery time) kind of make it worth waiting.
ReplyDeleteRick,
ReplyDeleteI probably wouldn't have dated myself as badly if I'd said "Evil Forrest Gump". But Bush reminds me of Gomer much more strongly. "Well, surPRAHZ, surPRAHZ, surPRAHZ!!!"
That's Gomer Pyle with his finger on the button.
ReplyDeleteScary stuff.
This little plum would mean more oil AND more war, which is why I think they're going to do it.
ReplyDeleteYayyyy!
.
Thank the gods you are back. I was starting to get the shakes without my GG fix :-)
ReplyDeleteCan you please debunk the crap about Bush having declassified the NIE/Plame info? It is clear that this is yet another cover story invented after the fact. In particular, declassification is a *process*, not a whim, that requires many steps to take place before the information can be released, and these steps must be *documented*. My questions:
1. What are the required steps, in detail?
2. Did Bush actually carry out those steps?
3. Where is each and every document proving that the proper declassification process was followed, and can we see them?
I smell a huge pile of bullshit here.
Thanks!
This one might be easier for some people to understand:
ReplyDelete"al Qaeda is a faith-based initiative."
whig said...
ReplyDeleteHighlander, are you talking about this?
I think he was talking about this. ;)
Welcome back, Glenn.
Would love to read your article on the magazine, but I won't buy it just for it.
ReplyDeleteHopefully it will be available online at some point.
George Warmonger Bush still needsa pretext to invade Iran, or drop bombs on it or whatever he has up his sleeve. I think the dynamics have changed significantly enough that whatever he comes up with it won't be enough to convince a majority here in the USof A much less world wide opinion. I think it is a lose/lose scenario for Bush if he thinks he can get away with a manufactured trumped up excuse to attack Iran, for whatever reason.
ReplyDeleteUnfortunately he doesn't have very good advisors and we are all in the same boat with them whether we like it or not...definetly, or not.
Welcome back, Glenn, I can't wait to see the book (already ordered). How's Jennifer holding up? Or is her work just started?
ReplyDeletethank god GG is back--I was in serious withdrawal. So many questions, so little time....Like markinsanfran, I'd also like a more definitive explanation of "declassification." Also, sorry if this is a stupid question, but would someone explain to me why Miller and Woodward didn't write about what Libby leaked to them BEFORE the administration announced on July 18 that the NIE [well, just the parts the Bushies liked] had been declassified?
ReplyDeleteWith all the talk about nuking Iran and fantasyland article by Sy Hersh, I am surprised that few if any--except War and Piece--have mentioned WaPo's Arkin's recent articles:
ReplyDeleteA war with Iran started purposefully or by accident, will be a mess. What is happening now though is not just an administration prudently preparing . . . against an aggressive and crazed state, it is also aggressive and crazed, driven by groupthink and a closed circle of bears.
The public needs to know first, that this planning includes preemptive plans that the President could approve and implement with 12 hours notice. Congress should take notice of the fact that there is a real war plan -- CONPLAN 8022 -- and it could be implemented tomorrow.
Second, the public needs to know that the train has left the station on bigger war planning, that a ground war -- despite the Post claim yesterday that a land invasion 'is not contemplated' -- is also being prepared. It is a real war plan; I've heard CONPLAN 1025.
John B:
ReplyDeleteI think the dynamics have changed significantly enough that whatever he comes up with it won't be enough to convince a majority here in the USof A much less world wide opinion.
You are forgetting one crucial point (which is one that Glenn keeps harping on here): If the maladministration really thinks the AUMF is all it's cracked up to be by the maladministration shysters, it's an open-ended, unlimited document authorising whatever the Preznit deems worthwhile. The only check is a political one; he'll just keep going until Congress impeaches him, and even then, he may well turn around and say "you and whose army..."
See the problem?
Cheers,
congratulations
ReplyDeleteSecond, the public needs to know that the train has left the station on bigger war planning..
ReplyDeleteThe biggest advocate of starting a war with Iran, Michael Leeden, is not only spewing propaganda for the new war, he’s still trying to justify the first one, and he can do it only by being dishonest.
His latest column which attempts to defend Bush’s actions in the lead up to the Iraq War is a classic in disinformation.
According to Leeden, Bush’s use of the “16 words” was totally accurate and the White House has nothing to apologize for. He insists that British and French Intelligence stand by this account and everything the Bush said was well-founded.
Now I expect Leeden to be deceptive, but this column seems to break new ground even for him.
Now if my reading of this is correct, he uses intelligence from 1999 to substantiate this opinion, totally overlooking that Cheney asked for an update on the Niger issue in 2002 and that intelligence is what the controversy is about, not about the 1999 intelligence.
In other words, the intelligence received in 2002 did not prove at all what Bush said in those 16 words, and Bush, Leeden & Co. rely on a slight of hand that goes back years earlier to support those claims.
So, while Wilson (the press) and everybody else is talking about 2002 intelligence, Leeden and the right-wingers who are spewing this nonsense are talking about 1999 intelligence. They are intentionally confusing apples with oranges.
That’s what it looks like to me, although no one seems to say it that simply.
All of our intelligence agencies concluded that such recent claims in 2002-3 were completely baseless, but Bush put it in the 2003 State of the Union speech as if it were recent news, not years old.
That’s why the CIA didn’t want it in the speech. That’s why Hadley took responsibility for it. That’s why this is a scandal. And that’s why Leeden can’t understand why Hadley apologized. He doesn’t want to understand. He purposely misleads.
I think we can expect a whole lot more of this sort of dishonesty in the next few months. Can they get away with this kind of dishonesty again? Or is the public finally catching on?
Fascinating edition of the American Conservative.
ReplyDeleteThe far left is now finding common ground with the far paleo-conservatives like Pat Buchanan in the joys of isolationism.
Glenn, Bush is not a conservative. Never has been.
Bush is an establishment liberal in almost every part of his domestic policy apart from tax rate cuts and injecting a little bit of religion into big government social programs.
Real conservative cuts in tax rates and spending went out with Gingrich.
Bush is an internationalist in his foreign policy. The Bush Doctrine is much like the Reagan Doctrine - the offensive use of economic and military power against US enemies to affect regime change to democracy. This is a hawkish Wilsonism.
The old paleo conservative isolationism is represented by the tiny Buchanan wing of the party and the limited real politik internationalism by the gang in George I's administration.
Dems used to be internationalists before Vietnam, albeit in a defensive Real Pilitik sort of way. However, losing that war gelded the party. The Dem left wing is now just as isolationist as the paleo conservatives.
Fascinating.
I smell a huge pile of bullshit here.
ReplyDeleteWell, most of America couldn't smell the steaming six-foot pile of shit at Bush’s Inauguration.
Now that it is springtime and treason is in the air, it is becoming more obvious.
Oh, let's not forget the fraud, theft of federal funds, war crimes, and crimes against humanity either!
Can they get away with this kind of dishonesty again? Or is the public finally catching on?
ReplyDeleteUnfortunately, Billmon answers my question.
A few excerpts:
It appears our long national journey towards complete idiocy is over. We've arrived.
I've been trying to picture what the world might look like the day after a U.S. nuclear strike on Iran, but I'm essentially drawing a blank. There simply isn't a precedent for the world's dominant superpower turning into a rogue state -- much less a rogue state willing to wage nuclear war against potential, even hypothetical, security threats. At that point, we’d truly be through the looking glass.
One can assume (or at least hope) that first use of nuclear weapons would turn America into an international pariah in the eyes of global public opinion. It would certainly mark the definitive end of the system of collective security -- and the laws and institutions supporting that system -- established in the wake of World War II.
A country that nukes other countries merely on the suspicion that it may pose a future security threat isn't the equal of anybody. America would stand completely alone: hated by many, feared by all, admired only by the world’s other tyrants. To call that a watershed event seems a ridiculous understatement.
And if there's one place where a nuclear first strike could be made to appear almost normal, or even a good thing, it's on the boob tube.
Why should anyone or anything change? When a culture is as historically clueless and morally desensitized as this one appears to be, I don’t think it’s absurd to suppose that even an enormous war crime – the worst imaginable, short of outright genocide -- could get lost in the endless babble of the talking heads. When everything is just a matter of opinion, anything – literally anything – can be justified. It’s just a matter of framing things so people can believe what they want to believe.
Maybe power really is all the justification that power needs. In which case the downhill path for America – the most powerful country that ever was – is likely to be very steep indeed.
Per Bart:
ReplyDelete>The Dem left wing is now just as isolationist as the paleo conservatives.<
Sorry to disappoint but opposing unprovoked attacks on non-threatening nations is not isolationism.
At least in the past when the US joined in wars, there were usually already wars going on.
And unsurprisingly the ones that weren't were based on lies!
Have we finally become the dumbest mofos on the planet?, By Joe Bageant
ReplyDeleteAnd now that they eavesdrop on all calls, emails, and im's, you cannot or will not disagree. Otherwise:
ReplyDelete"Under this plan for the deployment of Operation Garden Plot, the use of CIDCON-1 will be mandatory. This direct support of civil disturbance control operations is to be used by the Army, USAF, Navy, and Marine Corp. with an airlift force to be comprised of MAC Organic Airlift Resources, airlift capable aircraft of all other USAF major commands, and all other aerial reconnaissance and Airborne Psychological Operations. This is to include control communications systems, aero medical evacuation, helicopter and Weather Support Systems. If any civil disturbance by a resistance group, religious organization, or other persons considered to be non-conformist takes place, under Appendix 3 to Annex B of Plan 55-2 hereby gives all Federal forces total power over the situation if local and state authorities cannot put down said dissenters. Annex A, section B of Operation Garden Plot defines tax protesters, militia groups, religious cults, and general anti-government dissenters as Disruptive Elements. This calls for the deadly force to be used against any extremist or dissident perpetrating any and all forms of civil disorder." [my emphasis]
Glenn, welcome back! What a relief! Never in my life have I "missed" someone I don't know as much as I have "missed" you. Funny thing about ideas.....and how powerful an intoxicant they really are. (Although I admit a close second would be if Keifer Sutherland were to leave "24").
ReplyDeleteSpeaking of ideas, I hope you will celebrate your escape from captivity by going to see V is for Vendetta and Why We Fight.
When I first discovered blogs late last year, my very first post on a blog was to the effect "Hey, why isn't anyone talking about the fact that we are not being asked to give up our Constitutional protections and free way of life during wartime---we are being asked to give them up forever?"
Since the first blog I went to was a "conservative" blog (I plead guilty to not having paid attention to politics for a long time), nobody knew what I was talking about and I was lambasted.
Today when you highlight that concept once again as you have done before, it has become old news to alert citizens, but it is still strange how little that fact is focused on by the media and the public at large.
Finally, being a curious person, I can't wait to find out who is going to write the forward to your book. When will you be able to tell us that?
And again, a heartfelt WELCOME BACK!
I just received this response back from Senator Durbin on his abstension from Senator Feingold's resolution:
ReplyDelete--snip--
Senator Feingold's resolution has helped draw more attention to the warrantless wiretapping program and the inadequacy of the legal rationales the Administration has offered to justify it. What is needed now is the full investigation that will guide us to the appropriate response as well
as to changes that would ensure that any future government surveillance is conducted in a manner consistent with our Constitution and laws.
He was going along so well there for a while. I may be off base here, but isn't the investigation motivated by a consensus of the Representatives; in other words, if there is not enough heat from the Senators, there will be no investigation?
Welcome back, Glenn!
shorter Bart: Bush-Nero is a fu*king failure, therefore he is not a conservative. Yeah, just like socialism never failed.
ReplyDeleteGrand Moff's link above starts:
ReplyDelete"Maybe Iran is not the Target?
I may be spinning my wheels, but in putting together pieces of things I've been hearing over the last week I'm beginning to think that something weird may happen in the next couple of weeks.
An invasion of Iran is not possible. Iran's nukes are not the only target, they are only a pretext. The goal is what the goal was all along, apparently, and I've never heard its name before today.
Khuzestan. Perhaps the goal is not to take Iran, or take on Iran, but to spin off a part of Iran that Iran has trouble holding onto, thus redrawing the map and significantly altering the balance of power in the Persian Gulf region."
Glenn and everyone, you have to read this because this MAKES SENSE and connects all the dots of what Condi, Newt, Rumsfeld, Bush, Straw and everyone else have been saying this past week.
By "makes sense" I am hardly saying this is a good idea, but it might be what is really going on behind the scenes rather than what everyone is presently talking about.
From Bart at 7:21PM:
ReplyDelete"The far left is now finding common ground with the far paleo-conservatives like Pat Buchanan in the joys of isolationism."
And here I though Glenn was Center-Right when it came to government powers and policy.
That's really quite...inane, even for Bart. Next thing you know he'll be claiming we're at total war with Islam but prove unwilling to face what that actually means in terms of tactics and policies.
Oh, wait...
Joe Bageant:
ReplyDeletePeople with more than two fingers of forehead, those who understand what can happen and obviously is happening, hope and pray the next election will begin to turn things around (which implies there are available candidates with the guts, wisdom and charisma to do so, but that's a whole nuther matter). At the same time they remain in deep denial of, or are simply too horrified by, what the rigging of two national elections by Republican operatives spells about our condition. It means that the way out of this escalating nightmare, the way back to something resembling freedom just might not be through the ballot box. And as long as the Democratic leadership is afraid to stand up and name the crimes and the criminals involved, the noodle-spined middle class will feel justified in its denial. And ole Larry will just stay out there on the back porch scratching his ass and thinking things are mostly OK. Just like tens of millions of his fellow Americans.
I'm pleased you're back, Glenn, as I find your commentary to be incisive and dispassionately passionate, if you know what I mean. I have also enjoyed the compelling commentary of your "subs," AL and "Hypatia." I hope you'll keep them around.
ReplyDeleteI do find some of the more intemperate gushing here at your return somewhat, uh...odd, and I can't help but feel it detracts from the seriousness of discussion for which your blog is fast becoming known. But...I don't want to dis anybody's enthusiams...just my reaction.
As for Sy Hersh's article and the possibility that the Bush cabal is planning a first strike against Iran (with nuclear weapons not excluded), I can't help but think--not of Gomer Pyle--but of Martin Sheen's terrifying politician in David Cronenberg's THE DEAD ZONE. The protagonist, (a never better Christopher Walken), who has developed precognition, shakes Sheen's character's hand at a political rally, and he has a vision of the furious Sheen setting off "the missles" (nukes, yep) in a Messianic frenzy.
Seemed like a sci-fi nightmare at the time, but it is chillingly plausible with people like the ignorant but zealous Bush in office, pushed by the amoral psychopath Dick Cheney. Plausible I think it is, but I hope it's still more rather than less unlikely. Even as an atheist, I have to say, God help us if they send nukes in to strike Iran.
Three comments:
ReplyDeletel) Khuzestan. Why isn't everyone on this story which Grand Moff broke on his blog?
2) Bart, please do not try in your more temperate analysis of why Bush isn't a conservative to paint Reagan with the same brush as Bush.
As you have done that repeatedly, I imagine you do it for a deliberate reason but please do not think people who were around when Reagan was President or who have studied his Presidency are buying that.
3) Robert: Sorry you don't like the "intemperate" response to Glenn's return but I suggest for a really serious atmosphere you might want to visit a morgue.
First people try to squash all humor on this blog, from Glenn or others, and now try to stifle all enthusiasm.
My own opinion is that there is nothing anti-intellectual about enthusiasm for certain ideas and passion is what real patriotism is all about.
I will continue to be extremely enthusiastic about Glenn and his ideas until he personally asks me to refrain from expressing my enthusiasm on his blog.
One of the main reasons I am so enthusiastic about certain writers including Glenn is because of every ten chromosones in my body, nine are "anti-authoritarian" ones.
So I view your attempt to "curb the enthusiasm" of others and myself as just another unwelcome attempt to control others. One might even think you are jealous of the enthusiasm his ideas generate.
You want unadulterated seriousness? May I respectfully suggest you buy a textbook. This is a blog.
Welcome back, Glenn. Your blog is a breath of fresh air, I really prefer the in-depth approach you have to the 'sound bite' technique of other blogs. And the same goes for the erudite comments of your base, (with the exception of bart, of course.)
ReplyDeleteSpeaking of bart, one of my teachers in public school liked to say, "no-one is without value. Even the worst of us serve as a bad example to others." Keep up the good work, bart.
Followed whig's link [5:28 PM] to a report that Bush wanted to invade Iraq even before his 2000 sElection. I seem to recall a statement from around then, I think it was by KKKRove, to the effect, "we're not just trying to beat the Democrats...we're trying to destroy them utterly, so they can NEVER return to power." Isn't that a declaration of war, not just against the Democratic party, but against the system of democracy itself? Sure sounds like it to me.
Prosecutor in CIA Leak Case Corrects Part of Court Filing
ReplyDeleteWednesday, April 12, 2006; A08
The federal prosecutor overseeing the indictment of Vice President Cheney's former chief of staff, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, yesterday corrected a claim in an earlier court filing that Libby had misrepresented the significance placed by the CIA on allegations that Iraq attempted to buy uranium from Niger.
Last week, Special Counsel Patrick J. Fitzgerald wrote that, in conversation with former New York Times reporter Judith Miller, Libby described the uranium story as a "key judgment" of the CIA's 2002 National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq, a term of art indicating there was consensus within the intelligence community on that issue. In fact, the alleged effort to buy uranium was not among the estimate's key judgments and was listed further back in the 96-page, classified document.
In a letter to U.S. District Judge Reggie B. Walton, Fitzgerald wrote yesterday that he wanted to "correct" the sentence that dealt with the issue in a filing he submitted last Wednesday. That sentence said Libby "was to tell Miller, among other things, that a key judgment of the NIE held that Iraq was 'vigorously trying to procure' uranium."
Instead, the sentence should have conveyed that Libby was to tell Miller some of the key judgments of the NIE "and that the NIE stated that Iraq was 'vigorously trying to procure' uranium."
Libby is not charged with misportraying or leaking classified information. He was indicted last year for allegedly lying to the FBI and a grand jury about what he said to reporters. The indictment came as part of Fitzgerald's investigation into who leaked to the media the name of covert CIA operative Valerie Plame, whose husband became a public critic of the Bush administration's case for the Iraq war.
-- Dafna Linzer Washington Post
yankeependragon said...
ReplyDeleteFrom Bart at 7:21PM:
"The far left is now finding common ground with the far paleo-conservatives like Pat Buchanan in the joys of isolationism."
And here I though Glenn was Center-Right when it came to government powers and policy.
You are joking, right? This blog is about on par on the ideology scale with Nation magazine.
Folks, I at least realize that I am a libertarian conservative hawk whose views are shared by maybe a quarter of the population.
I am not sure how many of you realize that you are on the opposite side of the spectrum and are hardly middle of the road in American politics.
Eyes Wide Open said...
ReplyDelete2) Bart, please do not try in your more temperate analysis of why Bush isn't a conservative to paint Reagan with the same brush as Bush.
As you have done that repeatedly, I imagine you do it for a deliberate reason but please do not think people who were around when Reagan was President or who have studied his Presidency are buying that.
Bush, like Clinton and most Elephants running for President, have attempted to imitate Reagan. That doesn't mean that any of them come close to the real item.
Bush came into office with only one bit of Reaganism - tax rate cuts.
Bush's foreign policy pre-9/11 was probably real politik, to the extent he even considered it.
However, after 9/11, Bush changed radically. He adopted the approach of the neocons, who were instrumental in forming the Reagan Doctrine.
The so called Bush Doctrine is an almost direct copy of the Reagan Doctrine, changing the target from the USSR to Islamic fascism (ne Terrorism).
Actually, Bart, I haven't seen any arguments posted by Glenn which would indicate he is a far leftist, or even necessarily, a liberal. (Though, he may be either of those things.)
ReplyDeleteIt strikes me that he is a passionate advocate for the rule of law, and for the Constitutional government set forth by our founders--as opposed to the twisted perversion made of it by the thugs who have usurped the White House.
I am a liberal--whatever that means--but I was raised in a conservative Republican household, and my entire immediate and extended family, (i.e., uncles, cousins, nephews, nieces, etc.), insofar as they are political--and some aren't--remain staunch Republicans. I cannot fathom how they support Bush, as he so betrays the principles I was raised with as a Republican. But, I digress: when I was home at Christmas visiting, we stopped by a bookstore and my father picked up a copy of American Conservative. On the ride back to the house, I began to peruse the magazine, and my father mockingly told me to "watch out," as I might be disturbed to read "some truth" for a change. He had never read the magazine before, and assumed it would echo the Fox News cheerleading for our pipsqueak President. I was surprised but gladdened as I read through the mag and found vigorous and frank criticism of the Bush Administration and of its disastrous adventuring in Iraq.
THESE people who publish this mag are consistent with the ideology of the conservatism I was raised with, which valued honesty, fairness, and respect for law. That my parents cheered when Bush bragged on tv that he would continue to authorize warrantless wiretaps appalled and astonished me. Can they have become so cynical, so ready to discard their values, the values which inform my own more liberal present day thinking?
No...I think they do not think seriously about politics, but simply accept the prevailing ethos, and they do not think through the implications of what they applaud. They think I have become a "radical," but I see myself merely as holding fast to the ethics they taught me. NO ONE IS ABOVE THE LAW and THE ENDS DO NOT JUSTIFY THE MEANS. (Among much else, of course.)
So, no...Glenn does not--at least in his arguments here--reveal himself to be a leftist at all. That is merely your perception, distorted by your own self-admitted minority politics.
You can Run But You Can't Hide from All Those Lies. I wonder how our resident Ubu-Bush idolators will twist and contort to explain this:
ReplyDeleteOn May 29, 2003, 50 days after the fall of Baghdad, President Bush proclaimed a fresh victory for his administration in Iraq: Two small trailers captured by U.S. troops had turned out to be long-sought mobile "biological laboratories." He declared, "We have found the weapons of mass destruction."
The claim, repeated by top administration officials for months afterward, was hailed at the time as a vindication of the decision to go to war. But even as Bush spoke, U.S. intelligence officials possessed powerful evidence that it was not true.
A secret fact-finding mission to Iraq -- not made public until now -- had already concluded that the trailers had nothing to do with biological weapons. Leaders of the Pentagon-sponsored mission transmitted their unanimous findings to Washington in a field report on May 27, 2003, two days before the president's statement.
Helena Cobban on the PsyOps program that made its way into the NYTimes, casting suspicion on that ever-so-famous Zarqawi letter that Herr Ubu-bush loves to quote.
ReplyDeleteBartus anusensis;
ReplyDeleteVos es joking , vox? Is blog est super in par in ideology lanx per Populus magazine. Folks , EGO utique animadverto ut EGO sum a libertarian conservative hawk cuius visum es partis per maybe a vicus of populatio. EGO sum non certus quot vestrum animadverto ut vos es in adversus pars of spectaculum quod es aegre medius of via in American politics.
Robert1014 said ...
ReplyDelete"my father picked up a copy of American Conservative"
Did your father subsequently decry the magazine as a "leftist screed"? LOL Those durn paleo-conservative Buchananites!
Intel Dump (via Defense Tech) on Rumsfeld as patriotic, hard-working and sincere--and Gen. Pace and crap sandwiches.
ReplyDeleteYes, Rummy is dedicated, patriotic, and a hard worker. Good for him. Now how competent is he? Has he ignored advice that was later seen to be correct? Has he attacked generals who disagreed with him by publicly rebuking them? Has he bullied senior military officers and stifled dissent? Has his arrogance and micromanagement led to needless deaths of American troops and harmed our national security? Is he the worst secretary of war in the history of our nation? Most importantly, has he consistently been proven wrong by events on the ground turning out just as his critics predicted, instead of how he predicted? The answer to all these questions is clear.
The rumblings in the ranks are getting louder folks. I do believe that if Bush seriously orders troops or nukes into Iran there will be military who will refuse to do so. The grunts aren't the only ones pissed off. The higher pay-grades are tired of having crap fed to them every day and them having to say it's foie gras.
Thanks, Anonymous at 11:13 p.m., for that Washington Post excerpt about the corrected filing by Special Counsel Fitzgerald Tuesday. Here's a post at Daily Kos about it, too (click above):
ReplyDeletehttp://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/4/11/193421/155
This seems to be the direct quote, as written by Special Counsel Fitzgerald:
"We are writing to correct a sentence from the Government's Response to Defendant's Third Motion to Compel Discovery, filed on April 5, 2006. The sentence, which is the second sentence of the second paragraph on page 23, reads, 'Defendant understood that he was to tell Miller, among other things, that a key judgment of the NIE held that Iraq was 'vigorously trying to procure' uranium." That sentence should read, "Defendant understood that he was to tell Miller, among other things, some of the key judgments of the NIE, and that the NIE stated that Iraq was 'vigorously trying to procure' uranium."
So my assumption mentioned in the preceding thread goes out the window. Even the obviously-discredited-by-July, 2003 "key judgements" of the NIE about nuclear weapons were allegedly being leaked to Woodward and Miller by Libby, on the say-so of Bush and Cheney. I guess it was all about creating a veil of "plausible deniability" behind which they could hide from the wrath of the public... After all, it couldn't possibly be considered "their problem" or "their fault" that all those fancy words in the NIE [which the CIA and DOD et al threw every last supposition and theory and even the "kitchen sink" into] turned out to be WRONG, post-invasion, surely...
People of bad faith, desperately looking for any shred of doubt behind which to hide in order to assert and claim that they carried out a "good faith" promotion of the invasion. Larry Beinhart has a first class post up that absolutely dissects this secrecy issue and what it has turned our government into:
"Federal Confidential"
zach, that link you provided led to a really fascinating opinion piece.
ReplyDeleteMutually Assured Dementia at Whiskey Bar.
What is so grotesque is that the reason it is so depressing may well be that it is so plausible. Sigh.
PS. I forgot to thank Hypatia and Anonymous Liberal for providing the readers of this blog with such good guest blogs. Thank you both.
“The CIA was pushing the aluminum tube argument heavily and Cheney went with that instead of what our guys wrote,” Powell said. And the Niger reference in Bush’s State of the Union speech? “That was a big mistake,” he said. “It should never have been in the speech. I didn’t need Wilson to tell me that there wasn’t a Niger connection. He didn’t tell us anything we didn’t already know. I never believed it.
ReplyDeleteRemember when I wrote how terrible Powell was a while back? He was terrible in Vietnam and he is terrible now.
Finally it seems that many are asking how this pathetic loyalist could allow the nation to go to war based on lies knowing that thousands of Americans and untold Iraqi citizens would die because of that lie?
This is the face of moral bankruptcy, and we seem to be drowning in a sea of it now.
Why isn't it treasonous to the AMERICAN PEOPLE not to tell the truth when the government lies to them and a top official knows the consequences aof that lie will be horrendous? To save his own position and remain loyal he allowed people to DIE? Tell me why that is not murder.
All those people who are DEAD and maimed do not care that Powell is having a pang of conscience now, if that's what it is rather than an attempt to distance himself from what he may see as a ship which is about to sink, and finally telling the public what it was their RIGHT to know before the war began.
If illegal immigrants have "rights" shouldn't American citizens have rights also? And the right not to have our nation engage in MURDER should be right up there at the top.
The "country" is not a piece of land: it's the people who inhabit the country, and we were betrayed.
Another point: I offer this up for consideration only. I am not arguing this case---
How do we know we can trust Patrick Fitzgerald? Everyone seems to be taking that at face value, but haven't we learned we should question everything and not accept ANYTHING at face value?
Let's examine what the case would be if in fact he was not the trustworthy person he appears to be and may well be.
What we would have is this ongoing, long investigation where nothing important is really at stake except possible jail time for Libby (who would be pardoned anyway) which has nothing to do with anything, but in the meantime nothing can be pursued, nothing can be discussed, no questions can be asked and answered and no actions can be taken about these lies and leaks and catastrophic events because there is an "ongoing case going on."
This is not a time to be worrying about Libby's future, is it? The future of this nation itself is at stake at this juncture, and holding those accountable who are at the top might be the only way to save it before total disaster occurs.
Also, one final point. Anyone who thinks that Libby is mad at Rove and might turn on him, or Libby would do anything to hurt Cheney or Bush to save his own skin knows nothing about human nature. Nothing.
Certain people are so close that they stick together to the death, and nothing that happens can disrupt or threaten their alliegance to each other.
That should be accepted as a given by everyone, rather than buying into the "maybe x will turn on y and spill the beans" type silliness. I mean even a minor obvious point is why think someone is going to implicate the one person who can give him a pardon?
glenn: "expected to end . . . right around never."
ReplyDeleteOr until the Democrats regain control, in which case, all bets are off.
Iran Showdown Tests Power of Israel Lobby
ReplyDeleteUntil the Democrats take power and all bets are off? I'd say leave the money on the crap table because the odds are no bets will be off.
The Lobby gives as much to Democrats as to Republicans which no doubt explains the strange silence of the present Democrats. I don't expect this crowd to gain a voice anytime soon.
BTW, did everyone know that Heather Wilson is one of the leading neocons?
Meanwhile, the statements made by the Iranian leader sound very reasonable to me, although I am not saying I have any idea whether everyone lies in politics or not. They probably do.
But he is saying he will let their nuclear program be entirely monitored by outsiders, and they will adhere to all the terms of the NNPT. If nations are asked to sign treaties and agree to abide by them, what's the problem?
It is so unfair that the neocons and the Lobby are pushing us into yet another insane military misadventure which could well be our last.
PS. If Reagan did anything wrong in office in terms of foreign policy, it was no doubt because Bush 41 was working behind the scenes to stick all those neocons in positions of power and mislead Reagan.
Obviously in retrospect the reason he chose Quayle, an unlikely choice, was because of Bill Kristol. That was one of the most terrible things to have ever happened, letting Kristol anywhere near the halls of power.
Could someone tell me if there is a more dangerous and lunatic man in the United States than Bill Kristol, with the possible exception of Fred Barnes?
From anonymous at 5:59AM:
ReplyDelete"Could someone tell me if there is a more dangerous and lunatic man in the United States than Bill Kristol, with the possible exception of Fred Barnes?"
Sure. He lives in the West Wing of the White House, was elected President of the United States twice, and (according to some accounts) hears voices telling him he has a God-given destiny.
Need I elaborate further?
From Bart at 12:02AM:
ReplyDelete"You are joking, right? This blog is about on par on the ideology scale with Nation magazine."
Hardly, on either count. Pray tell us: exactly *what* positions has Glenn advocated that fall to the far left of the dial?
Bart said:
ReplyDeleteTTTTTHHHHHHHHHHHPPPPPPPPPPPPPTTTTTTTTPPPPPPPPPPTTTTTTT
Oh puuuuuuleeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeezzzzzzz
Only a crude jerk would fart in the threads.
yankeependragon said...
ReplyDeleteFrom Bart at 12:02AM: "You are joking, right? This blog is about on par on the ideology scale with Nation magazine."
Hardly, on either count. Pray tell us: exactly *what* positions has Glenn advocated that fall to the far left of the dial?
NSA Program, Congressional v. Presidential Power, Abortion Notification (Alito post), Support Firearm Prohibition (Brazil post), the Iraq War, Drug Legalization, etc, etc...
My friend, Glenn is only "right/centrist" when compared to your views.
"NSA Program, Congressional v. Presidential Power, Abortion Notification (Alito post), Support Firearm Prohibition (Brazil post), the Iraq War, Drug Legalization, etc, etc.."
ReplyDelete1. GLenn opposed the firearm prohibition.
2. Most of the positions argued by Glenn on this blog are civil libertarian issues. There is nothing leftists about that.
The only reason you call these positions left/liberal is because you are defining conservative as following George Bush.
Ever read Reason magazine? They are Randian libertarians and they aren't too pleased with the Bush administration.
As Glenn pointed out before, supporters of Bush are a cult of the personality of Bush. Bart is kind enough to provide us all with an example where he equates liberalism as anti-Bush.
ReplyDeleteFunny.
When I was in Spain in 1970, I was told that the locals supported Franco because (a) he was a good catholic, and (b) he protected them from the communists. Our long journey to fascim is finally over: we've arrived.
ReplyDeleteJust a note: A nice chunk of the recent comments here have been about Bart--whether he is this, that, or the other thing. Since the blog is for discussing the postings of Glenn and his guests and the related comments for or against those postings by commenters, wasting time on the vagaries of Bart's character or lack thereof seems counter-productive.
ReplyDeleteI wonder whether Bart isn't sitting back and gleefully rubbing his palms together, seeing how much bandwidth is taken up by dealing with him and his trolling tactics. See how easy it is to create chaos? This is a classic PsyOps tactic.
There's a lesson here. The present admin exploits this type of diversion and chaos while they're off in another direction carrying out their evil agenda. ...
Zack,
ReplyDeleteIt is my understanding that it was the same old 1999 intelligence that Cheney got a look at in early 2002. What follows below is pieced together from many sources. If you want sources on any of the specifics, just ask and I'll be happy to get it for you.
There was nothing new in 2002, it was just recycled stuff from the Italians and Michael Ledeen (like he had not sdone enough damage in the old Iran-Contra days).
It had originally come in through both State and the CIA in late 2001 via an Italian intelligence dossier (hand delivered by Berlusconi and Nicolo Pollari of SISMI, new head of Italian military intelligence on 10-15-01).
The dossier included transcripts, not copies, of the same forged documents that will later turn up in the fall of 2002 and which will form the basis of the 16 words in the SOTU. But neither State nor the CIA was buying it (the latter produced two reports on the intelligence, both dismissive, saying the information was both old and inconclusive. And saying that the transcribed docs appeared to be forgeries.
In February 2002, the Italians resubmitted the dossier with some "embellishments" (not sure what these would have been and I haven't found any sources on it) and Cheney is briefed on this second dossier on 2-12-02. It is at this meeting that he asked for more information ... and that led to Wilson's trip.
And again, the CIA isn't buying the documents in the dossier, although their report on Wilson's trip will indicate that his conversation with a Nigerien official is evidence that the Iraqis wanted to by, but the official simply changed the subject (this was the Mayaki conversation -- which dealt with --you guessed it, a June, 1999 visit to Niger by an Iraqi businessman) because Niger had no interest in hurting its elationship with the US by having dealings with a rogue state.
It is the Mayaki conversation that Republicans cite as evidence that Wilson's trip actually supported their case for war (which is only true if you think that it is irrelevant that Wilson went on to add that Iraq had no success in Niger).
But neither the State Department nor the Pentagon are drinking the koolaid on this either because their agents (Ambassador Owens-Kirkpatrick and Gen. Fulford) agree with Wilson that Iraq had no success in Niger.
So Ledeen apparently is incapable of giving up and next smuggled his bill of goods in through Doug Feith's office at the Pentagon (OSP) in the Fall of 2002. Again, these were the infamous documents (later determined to be nothing more than crude forgeries by the IAEA) which led to the 16 words in the SOTU. But they were nothing more than the originals of the transcribed documents included in the earlier Italian dossier. And where did these come from? Rocco Martino -- formerly of SISMI )Italian Military Intelligence.
There is lots more documented information about Ledeen's activities in Italy in late 2001 and early 2002 (including contacts with Pollari, Martino and his old buddy from the good old Iran-Contra days Ghorbanifar) but this post is already far longer than it already is.
Josh Marshall at Talking Points has been working on this for a long time. Also some reporters at both Knight-Ridder and the LAT Times. And the Italian papers were all over it for a while.
Sorry to be so longwinded, but one of the major problems in getting people to realize just how cynically this administration led us to war is how complicated the relationships are and the piecemeal declassification process.
But I just keep working on filling in the timeline ... stacking up the evidence is some solace for the intense anger and sorrow I feel at an administration capable of doing something like this.
We should not allowed this thread to be hijacked yet again by a discussion of how we treat Bart. Nuf, if you want to engage him, be my guest.
ReplyDeleteFrom ender at 10:57AM:
ReplyDelete"Come on people! You are willing to respond to this guy? For the love of all that is holy, why?"
Basically holding the likely vain hope that by engaging his commentary with a combination of rationality and common sense (or at least force the commentator to face the logical outcomes of his positions), they will prove able to understand the insane contradictions of positions they advocate.
That and I'm just plain polite, even to those I disagree with.
I don't really care if Bart or whomever has some need to call me a liberal - that seems to be a common desire that I have never tried to combat - but I do care if my views are misrepresented . . .
ReplyDeleteAbortion Notification (Alito post),
What did I say about this? I recall writing that most people consider spousal notification laws to be reasonable and that, therefore, they could not be used to depict Alito as an extremist.
Support Firearm Prohibition (Brazil post),
The only post I ever wrote on gun control was near the very beginning of my blog, when I praised Brazilians for overwhelmingly rejecting a gun control referendum, even though, when it was first introduced, polls showed that they supported it overwhelmingly. Through debate and discussion of the type that we rarely have in the U.S., they became educated on the true effects of gun control (ensuring that the innocent population will be defeneseless against the extremely well-armed bandidos in the favelas) and they changed their minds and decided that it was not in their interest to unilaterally disarm.
Only if someone were attempting to be deceitful could they describe my view on that topic as "liberal."
Drug Legalization
Yeah - I'm against the government acting as our parents and dictating to us which substances we as adults can ingest into our bodies. I am also against the Government seizing all sorts of intrusive powers to enforce those paternalistic laws. Like Bill Buckley, that is so very, very liberal of me.
All liberals, of course, oppose federal government paternalism and massively enhanced law enforcement powers.
As someone else pointed out- and it's the topic of my article in the American conservative - these lables of "right" and "left" have come to be completely impoverished of meaning because they are never tied to any actual political principles but instead are purely the by-product of allegiance to particular political figures.
Yeah - I'm against the government acting as our parents and dictating to us which substances we as adults can ingest into our bodies. I am also against the Government seizing all sorts of intrusive powers to enforce those paternalistic laws. Like Bill Buckley, that is so very, very liberal of me.
ReplyDeleteBart's claim that this position renders you a "liberal" is just ridiculous. Buckely and half the cast at NR in the mid-90s -- including Richard Brookhiser -- came out in favor of legalizing pot and at least talking about it for the other illicit substances. (IIRC, Brookhiser admitted to illegally smoking pot when he was being treated for cancer.) A few years before, that raging leftist Henry Hyde wrote a book decrying asset forfeiture tyranny, and declaring that it was time for a national discussion of drug policy with all options open for consideration.
Over at Pete Guither's DrugWarRants blog, Pete discussed how common it is becoming for right-wingers to be dissing the drug "war," and he linked to a discussion at Freeperville where many if not most were opposed to it. Glenn Reynolds opposes drug prohibition, ditto John Cole. I've seen nothing but criticism of the drug war over at QandO.
And a lot of liberals in fact support the drug war; Charlie Rangel has claimed that legalization would amount to "black genocide."
But your over-arching point is so true. The political labels have lost all meaning.As I've noted before, depending on the venue and the subject on which I'm opining, I have been characterized as a wing-nut or a moonbat. (Leaving me to wonder, can one be both?)
The reality is, I oppose expansive govt and do not believe it is ever right for the state to initiate force against a citizen who has not first initiated (or moved to) force or fraud against another. So I oppose statist and/or paternalistic policies of the left, and of the right.
At this particular moment, the most dire threats to our liberty and our form of govt are coming from a Republican Administration, which some deluded fools characterize as "conservative." People who believe that Bush is a right-winger in any but the Nixonian sense, will interpret opposing Bush as opposing conservatism. Well, so be it. But I don't accept that framing, and do not accept that my opposing Bush renders me a liberal or a leftist.
For some background on what "endless war" might mean and what feeds its possibility, see Chalmers Johnson.
ReplyDeleteHaving worked for a defense contractor, I can tell you that it is not by chance that the notion of a "war" without end has more than political or social roots.
See I was hoping that this whole situation was going to parallel the silent Buffy episode.
ReplyDeleteYou know the one ... the creepy guys steal everyone's voices (the same way the Republicans have tried to shut up administration critics and intimidate the media by questioning their patriotism).
Then the slayer (the internet) gives critics (bloggers) their voices back and the creepy guys' heads explode.
But no -- the creepy guys just add their voices to the rising chorus.
But let's not forget that they were, are, and will forever be creepy guys whose only principle is political expediency in the service of electoral success.
"paramounce". Cool.
ReplyDeleteYankeependragon:
ReplyDeleteNeed I elaborate further?
LOL. I love your humor. I meant other than the obvious exceptions of course, but a case could be made that those who are brighter are the more dangerous, and I don't think any of us would ever argue that Bush is bright.
ender:
ReplyDeleteI read the article about the Oil Bourse that you linked to. I found it a fascinating article which could well be true and if it is true it has staggering implications, but I was lamenting the fact that I am not expert enough at economics or politics to know if it is in fact true. I wish I were.
May I suggest you send it to Paul Craig Roberts for his opinion? He is a noted expert on all things to do with economics and is an expert at politics too having been in the government.
hume's ghost: Ever read Reason magazine? They are Randian libertarians and they aren't too pleased with the Bush administration.
ReplyDeleteI understand why you write that and what you mean but I must point out that Ayn Rand was not a libertarian. She was, in fact, emphatically not a libertarian, which is why she refused to either lend her name to that movement or name her own philosophy by that name when Nathaniel Branden urged her to do so. She chose Objectivism instead. A=A.
To understand why Ayn Rand, a fierce believer in the Consitution and the system of government our founders left us didn't want to be associated with Libertarianism, you'd have to read her writings on that subject.
Nevertheless, since you describe Reason as Randian, although I have never read that magazine I will start reading it now.
PS. One of the main reasons Ayn Rand vigilantly refused her whole life to allow any group to speak for her or in her name is because she was smart enough to realize the dangers in so doing.
How ironic that a bunch of lunatic neocons who represent everything she was most against have taken over The Ayn Rand Institute and all the Randian websites.
It was her own fault for leaving that demented idiot Leonard Peikoff as her heir, but at the time there were valid reasons for her to have done so. It turned out to be a much bigger mistake than she could ever have anticipated.