By MARC McDONALD
Right-wing nutcase Rush Limbaugh has an odd definition of rape. For example:
1. If Iraqi prisoners are being sexually assaulted and tortured at Abu Ghraib prison, then, in Limbaugh's view, they are being subjected to mere fraternity pranks.
2. However, if the state of Maryland requires companies like Wal-Mart to spend modestly to provide some basic health care for their workers, then this is the "government-sanctioned rape of an American business."
Limbaugh isn't the only right-wing nutcase with odd views on rape these days. Take Michael Savage, for instance.
In September 2000, Savage was discussing a program in which students volunteer to distribute sandwiches to the homeless in San Francisco, when he let loose this tirade, (which is creepy on so many different levels, you could write a book about it):
"The girls from Branson can go in and maybe get raped ... because they seem to like the excitement of it. There's always the thrill and possibility they'll be raped in a Dumpster while giving out a turkey sandwich."
Once upon a time, comments like these could land right-wingers in hot water. I recall that in 1990, Texas gubernatorial candidate Clayton Williams cracked a "joke" about how rape is like the weather. "If it's inevitable, just relax and enjoy it," he said, in a comment that quickly became the biggest issue of the campaign and wound up sinking his prospects for election.
These days, I doubt such a comment would even be remarked upon by our increasingly timid national media. We're so used to twisted comments by the likes of right-wingers like Ann ("Earth is yours. Rape it.") Coulter that our capacity for outrage has blown a fuse.
But I would like to send a memo to Mr. Limbaugh on the topic of rape. The fact is, if a state government requires the likes of Wal-Mart (a company with annual revenue of $288 billion) to spend a modest amount providing basic health care to its workers, this is not "rape." Indeed, it's merely an entirely reasonable request: asking the world's largest corporation to pick up the tab on an expense that taxpayers would otherwise be forced to cough up.
On the other hand, what took place at Abu Ghraib was most definitely rape.
As journalist Seymour Hersh has pointed out, the U.S. government has videos from Abu Ghraib that depict children being sodomized. The White House has fought to prevent the public release of these videos.
As Hersh noted:
"...the boys were sodomized, with the cameras rolling, and the worst above all of them is the soundtrack of the boys shrieking."
A message to all you right-wing nutcases: if you're going to talk about rape, please consult a dictionary first so that you have a clue as to what the word means.
Thursday, January 26, 2006
Saturday, January 21, 2006
The Right Wing's Sliming Of Michael Moore Is Nothing New
By MARC McDONALD
Chris Matthews has compared Michael Moore to Osama bin Laden, creating a firestorm of controversy among liberal bloggers. To which I say: so what's new? Moore has been the target of vicious slander for years now.
Bear in mind, I'm not just referring to the nut-case, right-wing media. I'm referring to the mainstream media, as well. In fact, even some progressives these days have been careful to distance themselves from Moore.
I think Moore has gotten a bad rap. In reality, his films and books are far more accurate (and balanced) than he gets credit for. In fact, the accusations I've seen against Moore are themselves highly distorted and inaccurate.
The current wave of Moore-bashing seems to date back to his "infamous" March 2003 Oscar-night speech. The press reports I read about the event focused solely on the fact that his comments drew boos from some audience members.
Few people, though, seem to remember exactly what Moore said that night, three days after the U.S. launched its war on Iraq.
"We live in a time where we have a man who's sending us to war for fictitious reasons," Moore said, thus throwing a wrench into the carefully choreographed TV event beamed around the world.
In hindsight, of course, this comment has turned out to be amazingly prescient. The Bush team's stated rationale for the war has been shown to be, indeed, fiction.
As it turns out, Moore's comments about the impending war were more accurate and truthful than anything the mainstream media was churning out at the time.
Recall how, in the buildup to the war, the media did little more than stand on the sidelines, acting as a cheerleader.
On May 26, 2004, in a stunning and unprecedented half-page correction, The New York Times basically admitted that ALL of its pre-war coverage was seriously flawed.
And yet, somehow, at the end of the day, Moore's Oscar night speech seems to be regarded by many as some sort of black mark on his record. I find it bizarre that he's the target of criticism, as opposed to the mainstream media, which completely failed in its role to tell the America people the truth.
I think this episode pretty much sums up Moore's career. He raises vital issues that no one in the mainstream media has the courage to address. And, instead of taking a look at the urgent issues Moore raises, media pundits invariably attack Moore himself.
Have you ever seen Moore interviewed by a mainstream media pundit? It's an interesting experience. It's the only time I've ever seen one of these milksops actually grow a backbone and challenge someone with hard-ball questions and relentless grilling.
It's all very admirable. But I tend to wonder why Moore is the only person who gets this sort of treatment.
Take for example, the media's kid-glove handling of George W. Bush. You almost never see Bush get a hard-ball question in a U.S. press conference. Bush can lie through his teeth all day and never face a challenge from the press. Remember, this is a man who to this day has never been called to task by the mainstream media for the lies he told way back in the 2000 election campaign.
"By far the vast majority of my tax cuts go to those at the bottom end of the spectrum," Bush said at the time. I'm still waiting for the media to challenge that 6-year-old whopper.
And while Bush gets kid-glove treatment, Moore gets an unfair bad rap these days, from everyone from Fox News to the supposedly "liberal" mainstream press.
Here's an example. One major issue that Moore got grief on for his film, Fahrenheit 9/11, was that he supposedly depicted Saddam's Iraq as a peaceful, happy place. Countless commentators remarked on this. The idea was even spoofed in the 2004 Team America movie.
There's only one problem. Moore never said any such thing, or anything remotely like it.
Apparently, Moore's critics are referring to a brief segment in which he shows a few random street scenes from Baghdad, without commentary, just before the U.S. bombs fell.
It's clear that what Moore was aiming to achieve with this scene was to try to put a human face on Iraq. He wanted to let Americans see the faces of the ordinary human beings who we'd soon be dropping bombs on.
Was this unreasonable? I don't think so. In fact, I think it was a perfect antidote to the relentless lies that were being spewed out by America's mainstream press.
Day after day in the buildup to the war, Americans were pumped up full of fear and hatred of Iraq by an irresponsible media that was simply parroting Bush's lies. The distortion of reality was so great that, to this day, large numbers of Americans still believe that Saddam had a hand in the 9/11 attacks.
Moore also got a lot of grief over accusations that he never pointed out what an evil person Saddam was in F911.
When I read this criticism by media pundits, I had to wonder what film they watched. In reality, a very large chunk of F911 features relentless denunciations of Saddam by the Bush team. We see endless video footage of everyone from Bush to Cheney to Powell to Rice to Rumsfield ranting and raving about how evil Saddam is and why America has no choice but to attack Iraq immediately.
Indeed, it's these over-the-top, wildly inaccurate statements from the Bush team that served to enhance Moore's thesis: that Bush's case for war in Iraq was a pack of lies.
An entire industry has arisen these days, devoted to bashing Michael Moore. Web sites proliferate across the Net solely dedicated to sliming the film maker. Numerous books and films have been released, aimed at tarnishing Moore's reputation.
This brings us to an interesting question. Why is Moore subject to so many attacks? Is it really because he doesn't tell the truth?
Or, perhaps, is it because he shines light on difficult, troubling issues that America's rich and powerful would rather keep the public in the dark about?
I firmly believe it's the latter. And there's powerful evidence that this is indeed the case.
Take, for example, Moore's endless problems with securing funding and distribution for his projects.
This flies in the face of all conventional business wisdom. After all, virtually everything Moore has touched has turned into commercial gold, starting with his 1989 film, Roger & Me. The latter, shot on a shoestring $160,000 budget, went on to earn millions worldwide.
Which brings us to Moore's 2004 film, Fahrenheit 9/11. Profit-obsessed Hollywood should have been chomping at the bit to release this film.
After all, Moore had proven himself a solid commercial property. Moore's books, Dude, Where's My Country? (2003) and Stupid White Men (2002) were enormous bestsellers. And his 2002 film, Bowling for Columbine, produced for a mere $4 million, went on to earn more than 12 times that amount worldwide. Clearly, Moore had a huge, loyal audience that numbered in the tens of millions.
By any sane business logic, Disney should have been very eager to release F911. They refused, leaving Moore in a awkward 11th-hour scramble to secure a distributor. In the end, Moore had to go to Canada to find a distributor who'd handle his film in the U.S.
Was Disney's decision strictly a "business" decision, as the right-wing (and indeed, the mainstream media) claimed? Or was it outright censorship, done solely for political reasons?
It's clear the latter was the case. If Disney really believed F911 wasn't going to be a box office winner, given Moore's stellar commercial track record, then it's no wonder that Disney needs hundreds of millions of dollars in corporate welfare to make ends meet these days.
Some people might scoff at the idea that censorship can occur in the private sector, pointing out that only the government is capable of censoring anything. That might have been true 50 years ago in America, when there were still thousands of independent newspapers and other media outlets.
However, today, with a handful of giant conglomerates controlling the media, private-sector censorship is much more plausible. (And of course, we'd be naive to assume that the White House did NOT have a hand in pressuring Disney to block the release of F911.)
In any case, Disney's stupidity in refusing to distribute F911 was its loss. The film went on to enjoy spectacular commercial success. Shot on a mere $6 million budget, F911 has reaped hundreds of millions of dollars in box office around the world.
In the end, there's a silver lining to this story. The fact is, the more America's right wing continues to bash and slime Moore, the larger his audience grows.
As a progressive who's watched this country veer sharply to the right over the past quarter century, I find that Moore serves as an inspiration during these bleak times. I'd suspect that millions of working people across the land would agree.
To me, Moore offers the hope that, despite the stranglehold that giant media conglomerates have over the nation's public debate, it's still possible today for the American people to be exposed to topics that the rich and powerful would rather us not hear about.
America's ruling elite has long been adept at using mock outrage over various aspects of our pop culture. They love to stir up "controversies" over everything from rapper Eminem to the Janet Jackson/Super Bowl incident to shock jock Howard Stern.
All this serves a useful purpose. For one thing, this fake outrage tends to convey the impression that our nation's democracy and free speech are more much vibrant than they really are. I'd bet money, though, that what really sends shivers down the spine of America's ruling class is a commentator like Moore.
How does Moore draw such a large audience for his work? Well, for one thing, his films and books are actually entertaining---a rarity during an era when Hollywood is increasingly creatively bankrupt. Moore's films are also funny (and humor is, of course, the toughest and riskiest genre to pull off successfully).
Moore is also a master of presenting delightful slices of Americana. The people who populate his films are, in many cases, ordinary working-class men and women. His audiences likely respond well to his work, because, when they look up at the silver screen, they see a reflection of themselves--a refreshing change of pace in today's plastic, celebrity-worshiping pop culture.
Moore, of course, isn't the only commentator who's taken on decidedly drab, unsexy topics like union struggles, layoffs, corporate crime, the health care crisis, the growing gulf between rich and poor, and other issues that've been ignored by the mainstream media.
But Moore IS the only U.S. commentator today who has the gift of taking these urgent issues and presenting them in a manner that consistently draws an enormous audience.
For that alone, we progressives ought to be thankful.
Chris Matthews has compared Michael Moore to Osama bin Laden, creating a firestorm of controversy among liberal bloggers. To which I say: so what's new? Moore has been the target of vicious slander for years now.
Bear in mind, I'm not just referring to the nut-case, right-wing media. I'm referring to the mainstream media, as well. In fact, even some progressives these days have been careful to distance themselves from Moore.
I think Moore has gotten a bad rap. In reality, his films and books are far more accurate (and balanced) than he gets credit for. In fact, the accusations I've seen against Moore are themselves highly distorted and inaccurate.
The current wave of Moore-bashing seems to date back to his "infamous" March 2003 Oscar-night speech. The press reports I read about the event focused solely on the fact that his comments drew boos from some audience members.
Few people, though, seem to remember exactly what Moore said that night, three days after the U.S. launched its war on Iraq.
"We live in a time where we have a man who's sending us to war for fictitious reasons," Moore said, thus throwing a wrench into the carefully choreographed TV event beamed around the world.
In hindsight, of course, this comment has turned out to be amazingly prescient. The Bush team's stated rationale for the war has been shown to be, indeed, fiction.
As it turns out, Moore's comments about the impending war were more accurate and truthful than anything the mainstream media was churning out at the time.
Recall how, in the buildup to the war, the media did little more than stand on the sidelines, acting as a cheerleader.
On May 26, 2004, in a stunning and unprecedented half-page correction, The New York Times basically admitted that ALL of its pre-war coverage was seriously flawed.
And yet, somehow, at the end of the day, Moore's Oscar night speech seems to be regarded by many as some sort of black mark on his record. I find it bizarre that he's the target of criticism, as opposed to the mainstream media, which completely failed in its role to tell the America people the truth.
I think this episode pretty much sums up Moore's career. He raises vital issues that no one in the mainstream media has the courage to address. And, instead of taking a look at the urgent issues Moore raises, media pundits invariably attack Moore himself.
Have you ever seen Moore interviewed by a mainstream media pundit? It's an interesting experience. It's the only time I've ever seen one of these milksops actually grow a backbone and challenge someone with hard-ball questions and relentless grilling.
It's all very admirable. But I tend to wonder why Moore is the only person who gets this sort of treatment.
Take for example, the media's kid-glove handling of George W. Bush. You almost never see Bush get a hard-ball question in a U.S. press conference. Bush can lie through his teeth all day and never face a challenge from the press. Remember, this is a man who to this day has never been called to task by the mainstream media for the lies he told way back in the 2000 election campaign.
"By far the vast majority of my tax cuts go to those at the bottom end of the spectrum," Bush said at the time. I'm still waiting for the media to challenge that 6-year-old whopper.
And while Bush gets kid-glove treatment, Moore gets an unfair bad rap these days, from everyone from Fox News to the supposedly "liberal" mainstream press.
Here's an example. One major issue that Moore got grief on for his film, Fahrenheit 9/11, was that he supposedly depicted Saddam's Iraq as a peaceful, happy place. Countless commentators remarked on this. The idea was even spoofed in the 2004 Team America movie.
There's only one problem. Moore never said any such thing, or anything remotely like it.
Apparently, Moore's critics are referring to a brief segment in which he shows a few random street scenes from Baghdad, without commentary, just before the U.S. bombs fell.
It's clear that what Moore was aiming to achieve with this scene was to try to put a human face on Iraq. He wanted to let Americans see the faces of the ordinary human beings who we'd soon be dropping bombs on.
Was this unreasonable? I don't think so. In fact, I think it was a perfect antidote to the relentless lies that were being spewed out by America's mainstream press.
Day after day in the buildup to the war, Americans were pumped up full of fear and hatred of Iraq by an irresponsible media that was simply parroting Bush's lies. The distortion of reality was so great that, to this day, large numbers of Americans still believe that Saddam had a hand in the 9/11 attacks.
Moore also got a lot of grief over accusations that he never pointed out what an evil person Saddam was in F911.
When I read this criticism by media pundits, I had to wonder what film they watched. In reality, a very large chunk of F911 features relentless denunciations of Saddam by the Bush team. We see endless video footage of everyone from Bush to Cheney to Powell to Rice to Rumsfield ranting and raving about how evil Saddam is and why America has no choice but to attack Iraq immediately.
Indeed, it's these over-the-top, wildly inaccurate statements from the Bush team that served to enhance Moore's thesis: that Bush's case for war in Iraq was a pack of lies.
An entire industry has arisen these days, devoted to bashing Michael Moore. Web sites proliferate across the Net solely dedicated to sliming the film maker. Numerous books and films have been released, aimed at tarnishing Moore's reputation.
This brings us to an interesting question. Why is Moore subject to so many attacks? Is it really because he doesn't tell the truth?
Or, perhaps, is it because he shines light on difficult, troubling issues that America's rich and powerful would rather keep the public in the dark about?
I firmly believe it's the latter. And there's powerful evidence that this is indeed the case.
Take, for example, Moore's endless problems with securing funding and distribution for his projects.
This flies in the face of all conventional business wisdom. After all, virtually everything Moore has touched has turned into commercial gold, starting with his 1989 film, Roger & Me. The latter, shot on a shoestring $160,000 budget, went on to earn millions worldwide.
Which brings us to Moore's 2004 film, Fahrenheit 9/11. Profit-obsessed Hollywood should have been chomping at the bit to release this film.
After all, Moore had proven himself a solid commercial property. Moore's books, Dude, Where's My Country? (2003) and Stupid White Men (2002) were enormous bestsellers. And his 2002 film, Bowling for Columbine, produced for a mere $4 million, went on to earn more than 12 times that amount worldwide. Clearly, Moore had a huge, loyal audience that numbered in the tens of millions.
By any sane business logic, Disney should have been very eager to release F911. They refused, leaving Moore in a awkward 11th-hour scramble to secure a distributor. In the end, Moore had to go to Canada to find a distributor who'd handle his film in the U.S.
Was Disney's decision strictly a "business" decision, as the right-wing (and indeed, the mainstream media) claimed? Or was it outright censorship, done solely for political reasons?
It's clear the latter was the case. If Disney really believed F911 wasn't going to be a box office winner, given Moore's stellar commercial track record, then it's no wonder that Disney needs hundreds of millions of dollars in corporate welfare to make ends meet these days.
Some people might scoff at the idea that censorship can occur in the private sector, pointing out that only the government is capable of censoring anything. That might have been true 50 years ago in America, when there were still thousands of independent newspapers and other media outlets.
However, today, with a handful of giant conglomerates controlling the media, private-sector censorship is much more plausible. (And of course, we'd be naive to assume that the White House did NOT have a hand in pressuring Disney to block the release of F911.)
In any case, Disney's stupidity in refusing to distribute F911 was its loss. The film went on to enjoy spectacular commercial success. Shot on a mere $6 million budget, F911 has reaped hundreds of millions of dollars in box office around the world.
In the end, there's a silver lining to this story. The fact is, the more America's right wing continues to bash and slime Moore, the larger his audience grows.
As a progressive who's watched this country veer sharply to the right over the past quarter century, I find that Moore serves as an inspiration during these bleak times. I'd suspect that millions of working people across the land would agree.
To me, Moore offers the hope that, despite the stranglehold that giant media conglomerates have over the nation's public debate, it's still possible today for the American people to be exposed to topics that the rich and powerful would rather us not hear about.
America's ruling elite has long been adept at using mock outrage over various aspects of our pop culture. They love to stir up "controversies" over everything from rapper Eminem to the Janet Jackson/Super Bowl incident to shock jock Howard Stern.
All this serves a useful purpose. For one thing, this fake outrage tends to convey the impression that our nation's democracy and free speech are more much vibrant than they really are. I'd bet money, though, that what really sends shivers down the spine of America's ruling class is a commentator like Moore.
How does Moore draw such a large audience for his work? Well, for one thing, his films and books are actually entertaining---a rarity during an era when Hollywood is increasingly creatively bankrupt. Moore's films are also funny (and humor is, of course, the toughest and riskiest genre to pull off successfully).
Moore is also a master of presenting delightful slices of Americana. The people who populate his films are, in many cases, ordinary working-class men and women. His audiences likely respond well to his work, because, when they look up at the silver screen, they see a reflection of themselves--a refreshing change of pace in today's plastic, celebrity-worshiping pop culture.
Moore, of course, isn't the only commentator who's taken on decidedly drab, unsexy topics like union struggles, layoffs, corporate crime, the health care crisis, the growing gulf between rich and poor, and other issues that've been ignored by the mainstream media.
But Moore IS the only U.S. commentator today who has the gift of taking these urgent issues and presenting them in a manner that consistently draws an enormous audience.
For that alone, we progressives ought to be thankful.
Friday, January 20, 2006
Q&A with ImpeachPAC's David Swanson: "We have a duty to demand impeachment"
By MARC McDONALD
Any clear-thinking, sane American these days knows that George W. Bush needs to be impeached before he causes more serious damage to our nation. Fortunately, there are good, patriotic citizens in Washington who're working hard to try to make this a reality. Case in point: ImpeachPAC--a political action committee that was launched in November by Washington activists David Swanson and Bob Fertik.
In the following interview with BeggarsCanBeChoosers.com, Swanson talks about ImpeachPAC and what his organization is up to these days:
What is ImpeachPAC.org?
ImpeachPAC is a political action committee that Bob Fertik and I set up in November in order to raise contributions for pro-impeachment candidates. Our criteria for endorsement include, for incumbents, introducing or signing onto articles of impeachment for Bush and Cheney, and for challengers, committing to make that their first act in office in 2007.
We've heard from lots of challengers but not any incumbents--though that may change. And we've endorsed one challenger already, Tony Trupiano, who's running in Michigan's 11th District. He's an outstanding candidate. We've given him $2,100, the maximum allowed for a new PAC, and bundled together for him another $7,000 in contributions. People seem to love the strong stance he's taken, but the media sure doesn't--though, again, that may change. Pundits came out swinging against him as soon as he said the "I" word, but that was before the NSA spying story made the "I" word printable by the corporate media.
Also, the AfterDowningStreet.org coalition, an alliance of over 100 grassroots organizations, has launched a new campaign called CensureBush.org in order to support new legislation introduced by congressman John Conyers that would censure President Bush and Vice President Cheney and create a select committee to investigate the administration's possible crimes and make recommendations regarding grounds for impeachment.
The House Judiciary Committee Democratic staff has just released an extensive report titled "The Constitution in Crisis: The Downing Street Minutes and Deception, Manipulation, Torture, Retribution, and Cover-ups in the Iraq War." It is available here.
When did this site launch? What initially gave you the idea to start this effort?
ImpeachPAC was launched the first week in November. We saw a president and vice president who need to be impeached, a public that agrees with that, and a Congress that lives in another world--and we wanted to change something to fix that discord. We decided it'd be easier to build a new Congress than to convince ourselves and the public that impeachment was not justified. (For public opinion polls see this site).
CensureBush.org was created this past Tuesday to support new bills introduced by Congressman Conyers.
In a nutshell, why should George W. Bush be impeached?
That's got to require at least a coconut shell. The list of crimes is quite long. See this list.
The reason that has finally gotten a bit of interest from the corporate media is that Bush broke the law to authorize warrantless spying, and basically admits as much but claims to be above the law.
The reason that led us to start AfterDowningStreet.org back in May is that Bush lied to Congress about the reasons we had to go to war (he said Iraq's weapons were threatening the US and that he needed to go after nations that were behind the 9-11 attacks). He knew both of those to be lies. Lying to Congress is a felony. And there can be no more serious crime. If you don't impeach now, you never can again--or only for sex. But, of course, much of Congress went along with the warmongering charade, so it may be easier for some Congress members to get outraged about the spying (which is inexcusable and quite dangerous, but which as far as we know hasn't killed 100,000 people and made the whole world more dangerous).
A growing number of Americans support the idea of impeachment, but they are doubtful that this could ever happen while the GOP controls Congress. What would you say to those who are pessimistic about the prospects for impeachment?
Democracy ain't a spectator sport. A good citizen is not an amateur pundit on Fox News, but an activist for what is decent and good. We have a duty to demand impeachment. The fact that we may fail has no bearing and stems from a very disempowering habit of viewing politics as if it were a sport on a field while we're in the stands. It's time to rush the fence and tear down the goal posts.
Democrats have whispered--and this may be changing--that they won't say out loud that they're for impeachment until after they have a majority. I say they won't have a majority if they don't first say out loud that they stand with the 73 percent of Democrats who, according to Ipsos, believe that "If President Bush did not tell the truth about his reasons for going to war with Iraq, Congress should consider holding him accountable through impeachment."
"Eeek, but then we'd have President Cheney," (some people say). Oh, grow up. You can't investigate Bush without implicating Cheney. You can't investigate either of them on this without destroying the Republican party. Impeaching and removing from office are two different things, only one of which was done to Clinton, and the other of which has never been done in US history. And having criminal underlings cannot provide immunity.
If Bush has committed high crimes, he must be impeached. Same with Cheney. And the next administration that tries to start a war (based on lies, as all wars are) had better be scared of impeachment--and faster next time.
"OK, but don't censure them--they have to be impeached." They have to be both, and Congress members are too spineless to move to impeachment right away. Censure helps. And the bills that Conyers has introduced on censure are aimed at censuring Bush and Cheney, not for their obvious impeachable offenses, but for their refusal to turn over evidence that would make their impeachability even more obvious--if that's possible.
What can concerned citizens do to support your effort?
Give money--even the tiniest amount--to ImpeachPAC.org.
Sign up to attend a town hall forum. More info here:
Contact your member of Congress.
Any clear-thinking, sane American these days knows that George W. Bush needs to be impeached before he causes more serious damage to our nation. Fortunately, there are good, patriotic citizens in Washington who're working hard to try to make this a reality. Case in point: ImpeachPAC--a political action committee that was launched in November by Washington activists David Swanson and Bob Fertik.
In the following interview with BeggarsCanBeChoosers.com, Swanson talks about ImpeachPAC and what his organization is up to these days:
What is ImpeachPAC.org?
ImpeachPAC is a political action committee that Bob Fertik and I set up in November in order to raise contributions for pro-impeachment candidates. Our criteria for endorsement include, for incumbents, introducing or signing onto articles of impeachment for Bush and Cheney, and for challengers, committing to make that their first act in office in 2007.
We've heard from lots of challengers but not any incumbents--though that may change. And we've endorsed one challenger already, Tony Trupiano, who's running in Michigan's 11th District. He's an outstanding candidate. We've given him $2,100, the maximum allowed for a new PAC, and bundled together for him another $7,000 in contributions. People seem to love the strong stance he's taken, but the media sure doesn't--though, again, that may change. Pundits came out swinging against him as soon as he said the "I" word, but that was before the NSA spying story made the "I" word printable by the corporate media.
Also, the AfterDowningStreet.org coalition, an alliance of over 100 grassroots organizations, has launched a new campaign called CensureBush.org in order to support new legislation introduced by congressman John Conyers that would censure President Bush and Vice President Cheney and create a select committee to investigate the administration's possible crimes and make recommendations regarding grounds for impeachment.
The House Judiciary Committee Democratic staff has just released an extensive report titled "The Constitution in Crisis: The Downing Street Minutes and Deception, Manipulation, Torture, Retribution, and Cover-ups in the Iraq War." It is available here.
When did this site launch? What initially gave you the idea to start this effort?
ImpeachPAC was launched the first week in November. We saw a president and vice president who need to be impeached, a public that agrees with that, and a Congress that lives in another world--and we wanted to change something to fix that discord. We decided it'd be easier to build a new Congress than to convince ourselves and the public that impeachment was not justified. (For public opinion polls see this site).
CensureBush.org was created this past Tuesday to support new bills introduced by Congressman Conyers.
In a nutshell, why should George W. Bush be impeached?
That's got to require at least a coconut shell. The list of crimes is quite long. See this list.
The reason that has finally gotten a bit of interest from the corporate media is that Bush broke the law to authorize warrantless spying, and basically admits as much but claims to be above the law.
The reason that led us to start AfterDowningStreet.org back in May is that Bush lied to Congress about the reasons we had to go to war (he said Iraq's weapons were threatening the US and that he needed to go after nations that were behind the 9-11 attacks). He knew both of those to be lies. Lying to Congress is a felony. And there can be no more serious crime. If you don't impeach now, you never can again--or only for sex. But, of course, much of Congress went along with the warmongering charade, so it may be easier for some Congress members to get outraged about the spying (which is inexcusable and quite dangerous, but which as far as we know hasn't killed 100,000 people and made the whole world more dangerous).
A growing number of Americans support the idea of impeachment, but they are doubtful that this could ever happen while the GOP controls Congress. What would you say to those who are pessimistic about the prospects for impeachment?
Democracy ain't a spectator sport. A good citizen is not an amateur pundit on Fox News, but an activist for what is decent and good. We have a duty to demand impeachment. The fact that we may fail has no bearing and stems from a very disempowering habit of viewing politics as if it were a sport on a field while we're in the stands. It's time to rush the fence and tear down the goal posts.
Democrats have whispered--and this may be changing--that they won't say out loud that they're for impeachment until after they have a majority. I say they won't have a majority if they don't first say out loud that they stand with the 73 percent of Democrats who, according to Ipsos, believe that "If President Bush did not tell the truth about his reasons for going to war with Iraq, Congress should consider holding him accountable through impeachment."
"Eeek, but then we'd have President Cheney," (some people say). Oh, grow up. You can't investigate Bush without implicating Cheney. You can't investigate either of them on this without destroying the Republican party. Impeaching and removing from office are two different things, only one of which was done to Clinton, and the other of which has never been done in US history. And having criminal underlings cannot provide immunity.
If Bush has committed high crimes, he must be impeached. Same with Cheney. And the next administration that tries to start a war (based on lies, as all wars are) had better be scared of impeachment--and faster next time.
"OK, but don't censure them--they have to be impeached." They have to be both, and Congress members are too spineless to move to impeachment right away. Censure helps. And the bills that Conyers has introduced on censure are aimed at censuring Bush and Cheney, not for their obvious impeachable offenses, but for their refusal to turn over evidence that would make their impeachability even more obvious--if that's possible.
What can concerned citizens do to support your effort?
Give money--even the tiniest amount--to ImpeachPAC.org.
Sign up to attend a town hall forum. More info here:
Contact your member of Congress.
Sunday, January 08, 2006
If You Support This War, Republicans, Then Enlist Now...Otherwise, STFU
By MARC McDONALD
Have you ever been pestered by a flag-waving Republican who railed on about the need for all Americans to support Bush's illegal and disastrous invasion of Iraq?
Here's a quick way to shut them up: ask them to enlist.
I've long been amazed at how Bush's sheep-like fanatical supporters tout their "patriotism" by shouting it from the highest rooftops. And yet when it comes to actually doing something to support their country, they can't be bothered.
If any Republicans are reading this, I've got news for you. The Army is coming up short in its recruiting drives. These days, not only does Uncle Sam Want You---he wants you really, really bad.
So if you support Bush's war in Iraq, what the hell are you doing here in the States? Pick up a rifle and go fight in the bloody quicksands of Iraq.
I've talked to a number of Republicans who loudly voice their support for this war. But when they hear the word "enlist," they quickly try to change the subject. In fact, they have no intention of ever signing up. Like Bush himself, if they were ever confronted with the prospect of having to serve in combat, they'd run like little girls.
The fact is, enlisting these days is much more than simply doing one's patriotic duty. In short, the Army is increasingly desperate for warm bodies these days, as military recruiting is at a 26-year low.
In fact, in 2005, the Army missed its recruitment goal by nearly 7,000 troops (the widest margin since 1979), according to MSNBC.
As a result, the Army has greatly loosened its requirements for enlistment and is accepting people well into their 40s. Which means that chickenhawks like 44-year-old Sean Hannity would be greeted with open arms by hard-pressed Army recruiters desperate to meet their quotas.
Despite the increasingly serious shortfall that Army recruiters are facing today, I doubt we'll see any surge of Republicans stepping forward to enlist. After all, it's much easier to claim that you're a "patriot" by simply sticking a yellow ribbon magnet on the fender of your car.
Bush supporters who don't enlist these days are not only cowards; they are hypocrites. But it's a lot easier for them to mindlessly follow their chickenhawk "commander in chief" Bush, as well as Dick ("Five Deferments") Cheney. And it's easy for them to take potshots at genuine American military heroes like John Murtha, John Kerry and Max Cleland.
Have you ever been pestered by a flag-waving Republican who railed on about the need for all Americans to support Bush's illegal and disastrous invasion of Iraq?
Here's a quick way to shut them up: ask them to enlist.
I've long been amazed at how Bush's sheep-like fanatical supporters tout their "patriotism" by shouting it from the highest rooftops. And yet when it comes to actually doing something to support their country, they can't be bothered.
If any Republicans are reading this, I've got news for you. The Army is coming up short in its recruiting drives. These days, not only does Uncle Sam Want You---he wants you really, really bad.
So if you support Bush's war in Iraq, what the hell are you doing here in the States? Pick up a rifle and go fight in the bloody quicksands of Iraq.
I've talked to a number of Republicans who loudly voice their support for this war. But when they hear the word "enlist," they quickly try to change the subject. In fact, they have no intention of ever signing up. Like Bush himself, if they were ever confronted with the prospect of having to serve in combat, they'd run like little girls.
The fact is, enlisting these days is much more than simply doing one's patriotic duty. In short, the Army is increasingly desperate for warm bodies these days, as military recruiting is at a 26-year low.
In fact, in 2005, the Army missed its recruitment goal by nearly 7,000 troops (the widest margin since 1979), according to MSNBC.
As a result, the Army has greatly loosened its requirements for enlistment and is accepting people well into their 40s. Which means that chickenhawks like 44-year-old Sean Hannity would be greeted with open arms by hard-pressed Army recruiters desperate to meet their quotas.
Despite the increasingly serious shortfall that Army recruiters are facing today, I doubt we'll see any surge of Republicans stepping forward to enlist. After all, it's much easier to claim that you're a "patriot" by simply sticking a yellow ribbon magnet on the fender of your car.
Bush supporters who don't enlist these days are not only cowards; they are hypocrites. But it's a lot easier for them to mindlessly follow their chickenhawk "commander in chief" Bush, as well as Dick ("Five Deferments") Cheney. And it's easy for them to take potshots at genuine American military heroes like John Murtha, John Kerry and Max Cleland.
Wednesday, January 04, 2006
2006: Is The Glass Half Full Or Half Empty For Progressives?
By MARC McDONALD
Half Full: The GOP is reeling from scandals and the Democrats' mid-term 2006 prospects are looking good.
Half Empty: Between blatant gerrymandering that has been perfected to a corrupt art form and a 98-percent incumbency re-election rate these days, it's going to be extremely tough for the Dems to re-take Congress.
Half Full: In the aftermath of Bush's illegal wiretaps, more and more people are daring to utter the "I" word.
Half Empty: Big media is still gun-shy about talking impeachment and it appears that (for the thousandth time) they're going to let Bush set the agenda on this story (i.e. turning the focus from the crimes themselves to the leakers).
Half Full: The Left is on the rise in Latin America, with genuinely popular progressive leaders emerging everywhere, from Venezuela to Bolivia.
Half Empty: The U.S. ruling class isn't going to sit by idly while populist movements take control in South America. I'd bet money that CIA-backed coups and assassinations are already in the works. And the U.S. ruling class will get away with it, thanks to America's amnesia about these sorts of things.
Half Full: Bush is on the ropes as the year 2005 was a disaster for his presidency.
Half Empty: We still have three long years to go.
Half Full: Bush has committed crimes (from lying the nation into war to shredding our Constitution) far greater than anything Nixon did, so impeachment should be a shoo-in. I mean, if Clinton could be impeached for lying about oral sex...
Half Empty: Impeachment ain't gonna happen with a lapdog media that refuses to tell the truth about the Bush White House. "Reporters" like Bob Woodward and Judith Miller aren't part of the solution; they're part of the problem. Our media doesn't investigate this president; they cover for him.
Half Full: The Dems could pick up some seats in the 2006 elections--maybe even retake the Congress.
Half Empty: The Republicans have successfully stolen two consecutive presidential elections. By contrast, stealing mere congressional elections should be a piece of cake.
Half Full: The right-wing bastards have a hammerlock grip on the White House, Senate, House of Representatives, Supreme Court, and the mainstream media---but at least we progressives still have a foothold in cyberspace.
Half Empty: At least for now, we do. But if the past five years of Bush have taught us anything, it's that nothing is too outrageous for the GOP these days. If anyone ever sat down and read the entire mind-numbingly complex Patriot Act, it wouldn't surprise me if, buried deep in there somewhere, there was a clause authorizing the White House to shut down liberal Web sites in the name of "national security" or some such nonsense.
Half Full: Bush pledged generous aid to poor African nations. Even Bono had some kind words for him at one point.
Half Empty: Uh, Mr. Bono: I hate to break the news to you, but Bush lied. He loves to pledge generous aid packages before the world's TV cameras, but in reality, he has no intention of living up to these promises.
Half Full: Bush totally bungled the response to Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, but at least the worst is now over for hard-hit storm victims.
Half Empty: 2006 looks to be another busy year for hurricanes, forecasters say.
Half Full: The GOP is reeling from scandals and the Democrats' mid-term 2006 prospects are looking good.
Half Empty: Between blatant gerrymandering that has been perfected to a corrupt art form and a 98-percent incumbency re-election rate these days, it's going to be extremely tough for the Dems to re-take Congress.
Half Full: In the aftermath of Bush's illegal wiretaps, more and more people are daring to utter the "I" word.
Half Empty: Big media is still gun-shy about talking impeachment and it appears that (for the thousandth time) they're going to let Bush set the agenda on this story (i.e. turning the focus from the crimes themselves to the leakers).
Half Full: The Left is on the rise in Latin America, with genuinely popular progressive leaders emerging everywhere, from Venezuela to Bolivia.
Half Empty: The U.S. ruling class isn't going to sit by idly while populist movements take control in South America. I'd bet money that CIA-backed coups and assassinations are already in the works. And the U.S. ruling class will get away with it, thanks to America's amnesia about these sorts of things.
Half Full: Bush is on the ropes as the year 2005 was a disaster for his presidency.
Half Empty: We still have three long years to go.
Half Full: Bush has committed crimes (from lying the nation into war to shredding our Constitution) far greater than anything Nixon did, so impeachment should be a shoo-in. I mean, if Clinton could be impeached for lying about oral sex...
Half Empty: Impeachment ain't gonna happen with a lapdog media that refuses to tell the truth about the Bush White House. "Reporters" like Bob Woodward and Judith Miller aren't part of the solution; they're part of the problem. Our media doesn't investigate this president; they cover for him.
Half Full: The Dems could pick up some seats in the 2006 elections--maybe even retake the Congress.
Half Empty: The Republicans have successfully stolen two consecutive presidential elections. By contrast, stealing mere congressional elections should be a piece of cake.
Half Full: The right-wing bastards have a hammerlock grip on the White House, Senate, House of Representatives, Supreme Court, and the mainstream media---but at least we progressives still have a foothold in cyberspace.
Half Empty: At least for now, we do. But if the past five years of Bush have taught us anything, it's that nothing is too outrageous for the GOP these days. If anyone ever sat down and read the entire mind-numbingly complex Patriot Act, it wouldn't surprise me if, buried deep in there somewhere, there was a clause authorizing the White House to shut down liberal Web sites in the name of "national security" or some such nonsense.
Half Full: Bush pledged generous aid to poor African nations. Even Bono had some kind words for him at one point.
Half Empty: Uh, Mr. Bono: I hate to break the news to you, but Bush lied. He loves to pledge generous aid packages before the world's TV cameras, but in reality, he has no intention of living up to these promises.
Half Full: Bush totally bungled the response to Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, but at least the worst is now over for hard-hit storm victims.
Half Empty: 2006 looks to be another busy year for hurricanes, forecasters say.
Friday, December 30, 2005
ACLU Calls For Special Counsel: Add Your Voice
"Now, by the way, any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires — a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way. When we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about getting a court order before we do so. It’s important for our fellow citizens to understand, when you think Patriot Act, constitutional guarantees are in place when it comes to doing what is necessary to protect our homeland, because we value the Constitution."
-- George W. Bush, April 20, 2004
When Bush secretly authorized the National Security Agency to spy on Americans, he violated the Constitution and his oath of office. The ACLU is calling for the Department of Justice appoint a special counsel to investigate and prosecute any and all crimes committed. Follow this link to add your voice to this effort.
Also, U.S. Rep. John Conyers, Jr. is calling upon Congress to form a Special Committee to investigate the Bush administration's abuses of power and to report any offenses which rise to the level of impeachment. Go here to add your voice to Conyers' effort.
-- George W. Bush, April 20, 2004
When Bush secretly authorized the National Security Agency to spy on Americans, he violated the Constitution and his oath of office. The ACLU is calling for the Department of Justice appoint a special counsel to investigate and prosecute any and all crimes committed. Follow this link to add your voice to this effort.
Also, U.S. Rep. John Conyers, Jr. is calling upon Congress to form a Special Committee to investigate the Bush administration's abuses of power and to report any offenses which rise to the level of impeachment. Go here to add your voice to Conyers' effort.
Wednesday, December 28, 2005
Spying Shows "Il Doofus" Bush Not Only Worst President: He's the Craziest
By MANIFESTO JOE
Much has been written this year about the possibility that future historians will regard George W. Bush as the worst U.S. president ever.
Recently, columnist Richard Reeves wrote:
"The History News Network at George Mason University has just polled historians informally on the Bush record. Four hundred fifteen, about a third of those contacted, answered ... 338 said they believed Bush was failing, while 77 said he was succeeding. Fifty said they thought he was the worst president ever."
I'll go one up on that. Not only is Bush at the bottom among the presidents -- Fillmore, Buchanan, Andrew Johnson, Grant, Harding, Hoover and Carter, I would argue, were probably all marginally better, or at least not quite as bad -- in addition, Bush is arrogant to a point that suggests megalomania, a mental disorder. He's even more arrogant than Nixon, and that's saying plenty.
I leave it to Reeves to lay out specifics of Bush's staggering incompetence. He did a fine job in the aforementioned article, "Is George Bush the Worst President -- Ever?" It can be found on his Web site. I'll just add that Bush has the anti-King-Midas touch. Everything seems to turn into excrement.
But after his so-called defiant performances in defending the secret eavesdropping, in complete disregard for the law, the "president" revealed himself as what some have long suspected. This is the American Mussolini, only crazier. (And at least Il Duce could make the trains run on time).
Early in Bush's first term, even before 9-11, one blogger dubbed Bush "Il Doofus." Now, with three years left in Bush's second term, it doesn't seem so funny.
Bush not only has the insolence to claim that his warrantless domestic spying was proper, he has also complained about "illegal" leaks to the media about his administration's brash lawlessness.
The fact is that a 1978 law, passed in response to Nixon's many abuses of power, clearly and explicitly requires the government to obtain a warrant for such action.
Predictably, Bush has had defenders. Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice and Attorney General Alberto Gonzales were quick to oblige. And this is simply part of the problem. This megalomaniac has surrounded himself with nothing but cronies and toadies. Anyone who would dare risk one of his private tantrums has long since departed, leaving America to be "led" by a crypto-fascist crackpot who apparently believes that God speaks directly to him.
The first thing the House of Representatives should do when it reconvenes in January is start drawing up articles of impeachment. If they would do that to a president who lied about getting a blow job, what about one who has clearly broken a law that specifically limits his powers?
Problem is, some of Bush's GOP toadies are in the House, chairing committees. And then there's the Supreme Court that appointed him president in the first place. This offense is likely to go to them for a decision. It will be 5-4, I'll bet.
The Boston Globe recently quoted Yale University constitutional law professor Jack Balkin: "Once you begin with the assumption that an emergency justifies suspension of constitutional rights, and that the president cannot be bound by the rule of law ... there is very little left to restrain the president. And so he has not been restrained."
I'll suggest one thing to restrain this president. A straitjacket would do the job nicely.
MANIFESTO JOE IS AN UNDERGROUND WRITER LIVING IN TEXAS
Much has been written this year about the possibility that future historians will regard George W. Bush as the worst U.S. president ever.
Recently, columnist Richard Reeves wrote:
"The History News Network at George Mason University has just polled historians informally on the Bush record. Four hundred fifteen, about a third of those contacted, answered ... 338 said they believed Bush was failing, while 77 said he was succeeding. Fifty said they thought he was the worst president ever."
I'll go one up on that. Not only is Bush at the bottom among the presidents -- Fillmore, Buchanan, Andrew Johnson, Grant, Harding, Hoover and Carter, I would argue, were probably all marginally better, or at least not quite as bad -- in addition, Bush is arrogant to a point that suggests megalomania, a mental disorder. He's even more arrogant than Nixon, and that's saying plenty.
I leave it to Reeves to lay out specifics of Bush's staggering incompetence. He did a fine job in the aforementioned article, "Is George Bush the Worst President -- Ever?" It can be found on his Web site. I'll just add that Bush has the anti-King-Midas touch. Everything seems to turn into excrement.
But after his so-called defiant performances in defending the secret eavesdropping, in complete disregard for the law, the "president" revealed himself as what some have long suspected. This is the American Mussolini, only crazier. (And at least Il Duce could make the trains run on time).
Early in Bush's first term, even before 9-11, one blogger dubbed Bush "Il Doofus." Now, with three years left in Bush's second term, it doesn't seem so funny.
Bush not only has the insolence to claim that his warrantless domestic spying was proper, he has also complained about "illegal" leaks to the media about his administration's brash lawlessness.
The fact is that a 1978 law, passed in response to Nixon's many abuses of power, clearly and explicitly requires the government to obtain a warrant for such action.
Predictably, Bush has had defenders. Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice and Attorney General Alberto Gonzales were quick to oblige. And this is simply part of the problem. This megalomaniac has surrounded himself with nothing but cronies and toadies. Anyone who would dare risk one of his private tantrums has long since departed, leaving America to be "led" by a crypto-fascist crackpot who apparently believes that God speaks directly to him.
The first thing the House of Representatives should do when it reconvenes in January is start drawing up articles of impeachment. If they would do that to a president who lied about getting a blow job, what about one who has clearly broken a law that specifically limits his powers?
Problem is, some of Bush's GOP toadies are in the House, chairing committees. And then there's the Supreme Court that appointed him president in the first place. This offense is likely to go to them for a decision. It will be 5-4, I'll bet.
The Boston Globe recently quoted Yale University constitutional law professor Jack Balkin: "Once you begin with the assumption that an emergency justifies suspension of constitutional rights, and that the president cannot be bound by the rule of law ... there is very little left to restrain the president. And so he has not been restrained."
I'll suggest one thing to restrain this president. A straitjacket would do the job nicely.
MANIFESTO JOE IS AN UNDERGROUND WRITER LIVING IN TEXAS
Tuesday, December 27, 2005
It's Time For Progressives To Look Beyond the Ballot For Change
By MARC McDONALD
As America enters 2006, it's clear to many of us that this nation is in deep trouble.
Some progressives console themselves with the hope that perhaps the 2006 elections will return Congress to the Democrats' control. Other progressives are hopeful that support will grow for Bush to be impeached. Others are looking further ahead to the 2008 elections.
I know I stand the risk of being painted as an "anti-American" radical for saying this, but I'll go ahead and say it anyway. If we ordinary working Americans really want to take back our country, we really need to start looking beyond the ballot.
No doubt, Republicans will accuse people like me of seeking to overturn America's constitutional democratic system. This, of course, is a bogus argument. The fact is, the system has already been overturned by fanatical Bush loyalists.
In fact, America long ago ceased having the slightest resemblance to the original system that was envisioned by the Founding Fathers. No doubt, the Founding Fathers would be astonished at how America's political system has been thoroughly corrupted and tainted by money.
Indeed, if the likes of Thomas Jefferson returned today, he'd no doubt be absolutely sickened by the likes of Bush, a corrupt and evil politician who takes his marching orders from the rich, the powerful, and the corporations that dominate America today.
Incidentally, Jefferson had a few things to say about corporations in his day. For example:
"I hope we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of our monied corporations which dare already to challenge our government to a trial by strength, and bid defiance to the laws of our country."
It's clear that the Founding Fathers, were they to return today, would in fact support a second American revolution---one that would sweep away the corruption that has infested our government and one that'd return democracy to the people.
To anyone who believes that this is simply too radical a step to take, I would like to emphasize that the Republicans have already bypassed our Constitution in their relentless drive to seize and consolidate their power the past couple of decades. Does any clear-thinking rational adult out there really believe that the 2000 and 2004 elections were legitimate?
The Republicans have already successfully gotten away with stealing two consecutive elections. Does anyone care to wager that they won't steal the vote yet again in 2008? I mean, what's going to stop them? The Democrats? (Don't make me laugh). The media? (Don't make me laugh even harder).
One thing I will give the Republicans credit for, though, is this: when they want something, they will relentlessly focus on getting it, no matter what the cost. By contrast, the Democrats have utterly failed in their role as the nation's opposition party.
With a few exceptions, the Democrats are weak and timid. Democratic candidates for office are simply too polite and they're always careful to follow the rules and to not upset or offend anyone.
By contrast, Republicans go into elections like street fighters. A lot of today's Republicans follow no rules in elections. They won't hesitate to use a pair of brass knuckles, or pull a switchblade out of their sock and stab you in the back. And in the end, if they lose the election, that's OK---they'll simply steal the vote.
As bad as Bush is, I have no doubt that the next guy the Republicans run for president in 2008 will be even more extreme and more evil. I mean, Bush makes Reagan look like a moderate (and, by contrast, Nixon was a downright liberal compared to Reagan). So you can imagine the horrors that face this country in the years ahead.
So how can we, the working people of America, really change things, going up against the Republicans and their billions of dollars in backing from the rich and powerful? The traditional checks and balances in our nation's system simply are no longer there.
Once upon a time, corporations were actually controlled somewhat by a few rules here and there---they weren't allowed to run amok with unbridled power as they are today. Once upon a time, our nation's media actually performed a watchdog role---unlike today's timid, cowardly media, where the likes of Bob Woodward and Judith Miller actually collaborate with the White House.
As far as the impeachment process goes, I don't have much confidence that today's Democrats have the spine to hold Bush accountable for his crimes. I mean, the Democrats are so timid these days, they don't even contest blatantly stolen elections. How can we expect them to ever take such a bold step as to impeach Bush?
No, if you really want true, genuine change in America these days, the only way to do it is to look beyond the (stolen) ballot. People are going to need to take to the streets and demand change if we're ever going to get it in this country.
Maybe we could take a cue from our nation's past progressive history and organize a nationwide general strike. In any case, people power is capable of wonderful things: look at how peacefully protesting masses played a crucial role in bringing down the Eastern Bloc communist states without a shot being fired.
As America enters 2006, it's clear to many of us that this nation is in deep trouble.
Some progressives console themselves with the hope that perhaps the 2006 elections will return Congress to the Democrats' control. Other progressives are hopeful that support will grow for Bush to be impeached. Others are looking further ahead to the 2008 elections.
I know I stand the risk of being painted as an "anti-American" radical for saying this, but I'll go ahead and say it anyway. If we ordinary working Americans really want to take back our country, we really need to start looking beyond the ballot.
No doubt, Republicans will accuse people like me of seeking to overturn America's constitutional democratic system. This, of course, is a bogus argument. The fact is, the system has already been overturned by fanatical Bush loyalists.
In fact, America long ago ceased having the slightest resemblance to the original system that was envisioned by the Founding Fathers. No doubt, the Founding Fathers would be astonished at how America's political system has been thoroughly corrupted and tainted by money.
Indeed, if the likes of Thomas Jefferson returned today, he'd no doubt be absolutely sickened by the likes of Bush, a corrupt and evil politician who takes his marching orders from the rich, the powerful, and the corporations that dominate America today.
Incidentally, Jefferson had a few things to say about corporations in his day. For example:
"I hope we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of our monied corporations which dare already to challenge our government to a trial by strength, and bid defiance to the laws of our country."
It's clear that the Founding Fathers, were they to return today, would in fact support a second American revolution---one that would sweep away the corruption that has infested our government and one that'd return democracy to the people.
To anyone who believes that this is simply too radical a step to take, I would like to emphasize that the Republicans have already bypassed our Constitution in their relentless drive to seize and consolidate their power the past couple of decades. Does any clear-thinking rational adult out there really believe that the 2000 and 2004 elections were legitimate?
The Republicans have already successfully gotten away with stealing two consecutive elections. Does anyone care to wager that they won't steal the vote yet again in 2008? I mean, what's going to stop them? The Democrats? (Don't make me laugh). The media? (Don't make me laugh even harder).
One thing I will give the Republicans credit for, though, is this: when they want something, they will relentlessly focus on getting it, no matter what the cost. By contrast, the Democrats have utterly failed in their role as the nation's opposition party.
With a few exceptions, the Democrats are weak and timid. Democratic candidates for office are simply too polite and they're always careful to follow the rules and to not upset or offend anyone.
By contrast, Republicans go into elections like street fighters. A lot of today's Republicans follow no rules in elections. They won't hesitate to use a pair of brass knuckles, or pull a switchblade out of their sock and stab you in the back. And in the end, if they lose the election, that's OK---they'll simply steal the vote.
As bad as Bush is, I have no doubt that the next guy the Republicans run for president in 2008 will be even more extreme and more evil. I mean, Bush makes Reagan look like a moderate (and, by contrast, Nixon was a downright liberal compared to Reagan). So you can imagine the horrors that face this country in the years ahead.
So how can we, the working people of America, really change things, going up against the Republicans and their billions of dollars in backing from the rich and powerful? The traditional checks and balances in our nation's system simply are no longer there.
Once upon a time, corporations were actually controlled somewhat by a few rules here and there---they weren't allowed to run amok with unbridled power as they are today. Once upon a time, our nation's media actually performed a watchdog role---unlike today's timid, cowardly media, where the likes of Bob Woodward and Judith Miller actually collaborate with the White House.
As far as the impeachment process goes, I don't have much confidence that today's Democrats have the spine to hold Bush accountable for his crimes. I mean, the Democrats are so timid these days, they don't even contest blatantly stolen elections. How can we expect them to ever take such a bold step as to impeach Bush?
No, if you really want true, genuine change in America these days, the only way to do it is to look beyond the (stolen) ballot. People are going to need to take to the streets and demand change if we're ever going to get it in this country.
Maybe we could take a cue from our nation's past progressive history and organize a nationwide general strike. In any case, people power is capable of wonderful things: look at how peacefully protesting masses played a crucial role in bringing down the Eastern Bloc communist states without a shot being fired.
Thursday, December 15, 2005
"Fooled Again" Author Mark Crispin Miller: Why American Democracy Is In Danger
By MARC McDONALD
In the following interview with BeggarsCanBeChoosers.com, author Mark Crispin Miller talks about his new book, Fooled Again, which takes a look at the 2004 election. In this interview, Miller describes how America's current election system is "rotten to the core." He explains why American democracy is finished if the nation doesn't implement serious electoral reform immediately.
In a nutshell, what is your new book, Fooled Again, about?
Miller: The theft of the 2004 election. The book provides an overview of all the many tactics and devices that were used nationwide--indeed, worldwide--to cut the Kerry vote and pad the Bush vote. It's also an analysis of the fanatical mentality behind that vast crusade against American democracy.
What motivated you to write this book?
Miller: A sense of civic outrage, not only at the fraud itself but at the general silence over it. With just a few exceptions here and there, the whole political establishment, the press included, steadfastly refuses even to acknowledge the grave danger of election fraud.
If we don't have serious electoral reform ASAP, American democracy is finished; and yet both parties and the press are largely unified in deeming last year's race legitimate. So there's been next to no debate over a major danger to American democracy, and, therefore, to our very lives and liberty.
That silence is a grave betrayal of American ideals, and an insult to common sense, and I wrote Fooled Again to break it.
At what point did you first become aware of problems in the 2004 election?
Miller: Big problems were already popping up before Election Day--not just in Ohio, but in Pennsylvania, Florida, Minnesota, Texas and a lot of other places.
There was evidence of a concerted effort to disenfranchise Democrats by using fake opinion pollsters in Nevada, Oregon, New Jersey, West Virginia and elsewhere. There were intimidation tactics, blunt obstructionism, state disinformation drives, and even break-ins, all over the country.
There was interference with the huge vote of Americans abroad. All such evidence was on the public record--not in any prominent place, but out there on the record--prior to Nov. 2. After Bush & Co. miraculously won, all memory of those problems seemed to disappear completely from the national radar screen.
Did you encounter many obstacles in writing this book? For example, did you find that officials were reluctant to talk, or that records were difficult to obtain?
Miller: A lot of evidence was missing when I wrote the book and is still missing now.
For instance, we still don't have the raw precinct-level data that was used by the official exit pollsters. The media corporations that paid for it won't make it available to independent scholars. And certainly the politicians and the bureaucrats, the party operatives and corporate personnel, observed a stubborn silence on a broad range of electoral concerns.
Across the board, Republicans refused to answer questions; and a lot of Democrats were strangely eager not to talk about the numerous anomalies, contradictions, improprieties. Such stonewalling was a given, something that you had to work around.
The evidence in Fooled Again comes either from the public record, or from people not afraid or disinclined to tell the truth.
The mainstream media in this country have been reluctant to examine problems with the 2004 election. Why do you think this is?
Miller: The U.S. media does not provide the crucial civic service that the Framers had in mind when they extended constitutional protection to the press.
The U.S. press today, in other words, does not inform the people for the purpose of republican self-government. It answers not to us, but to its parent companies, their shareholders and advertisers, and, not least, the government, which keeps the cartel well-protected from the people.
Whereas America's free and independent press was meant to function as a major part of our great system of checks and balances, and thereby help to keep us free from state dominion, the juggernaut that we now call "the media" is itself an instrument of such dominion. It does not report the news so much as it determines which news is, and which news isn't, beneficial to those managing the state. (By and large, this process works not through conscious and deliberate policing from on high, but far more subtly, through the fears and needs and aspirations of the people working in the media at every level.)
This is why the U.S. press will not report whatever news might pose a threat to the political establishment. It's why they never did report the truth about Bush/Cheney's drive for war against Iraq, even though there always was abundant evidence against the claims that Bush & Co. were making. It's why they've quickly veered away from every story that, if followed through, could well have blown the Bush regime to smithereens: 9/11, Gannongate, Katrina.
And, worst of all, it's why the press refuses to report the ever-worsening condition of American democracy: last year's election fraud; the current push by Diebold to get its DRE machines into more precincts coast to coast, despite a growing wave of popular resistance; the mammoth money-laundering operation that was used to pay for the subversion of the race last year; the Bush regime's attempts to gut the Voting Rights Act; and so on.
Do you believe that our nation's election system problems will be fixed in time for the 2006 elections?
Miller: There simply isn't enough time. We do have time to get a good start on improving things considerably by 2008. Before the next election, there is time to organize a national grass-roots polling operation in the most important places. Such an effort--which ought to be bipartisan, or non-partisan--would at least provide us with a rough idea as to how accurate the final vote-count really is.
In the meantime, we must do everything we can to force the scandal of last year's election out into the light of day. Once people know what really happened, they will demand electoral reform, and then we can debate how best to do it. If, on the other hand, the people keep on thinking, or half-thinking, that that election was legitimate, reform will seem unnecessary.
"If it ain't broke, don't fix it." We have to tell the nation--and the world--that things are badly broken here. If we do not, American democracy will soon be past repair.
I'd imagine that, after reading your book, there will be many alarmed citizens out there who will be wondering what they can do to help ensure honest elections in the future in America. What would be your advice to them?
Miller: The effort must be local as well as national. Those concerned should learn about the voting system where they live and vote (or try to vote), and work to make it as efficient and transparent as possible.
There are currently aggressive efforts under way to get Diebold machines approved, or their use extended, in New York, Pennsylvania (Bucks County), North Carolina, Arizona and New Mexico. In all those places there are grass-roots movements dedicated to genuinely democratic systems and procedures.
If you live in such a place, join that movement. If there's no such movement and you see the need for one, start one up. If you don't think there's any need for one, devote yourself to working on the problem at the national level. (For a sense of the broad range of possibilities, check out VotersUnite.org.)
The national effort must begin with--again--a vast campaign to tell the people what went down last year. Be relentless. Tell your elected(?) representatives, and the media, to investigate the fraud last year, deal openly and thoroughly with the danger of election fraud right now, and to pursue the issue of electoral reform ASAP.
It simply will not happen if you don't demand it.
Overall, are you optimistic or pessimistic, long-term, about the fairness of elections in America?
Miller: The current system's rotten to the core. As far as the people are concerned, however, I'm an optimist. I'm confident that, when they learn the truth, they'll make the right decisions. That's why I wrote Fooled Again.
In the following interview with BeggarsCanBeChoosers.com, author Mark Crispin Miller talks about his new book, Fooled Again, which takes a look at the 2004 election. In this interview, Miller describes how America's current election system is "rotten to the core." He explains why American democracy is finished if the nation doesn't implement serious electoral reform immediately.
In a nutshell, what is your new book, Fooled Again, about?
Miller: The theft of the 2004 election. The book provides an overview of all the many tactics and devices that were used nationwide--indeed, worldwide--to cut the Kerry vote and pad the Bush vote. It's also an analysis of the fanatical mentality behind that vast crusade against American democracy.
What motivated you to write this book?
Miller: A sense of civic outrage, not only at the fraud itself but at the general silence over it. With just a few exceptions here and there, the whole political establishment, the press included, steadfastly refuses even to acknowledge the grave danger of election fraud.
If we don't have serious electoral reform ASAP, American democracy is finished; and yet both parties and the press are largely unified in deeming last year's race legitimate. So there's been next to no debate over a major danger to American democracy, and, therefore, to our very lives and liberty.
That silence is a grave betrayal of American ideals, and an insult to common sense, and I wrote Fooled Again to break it.
At what point did you first become aware of problems in the 2004 election?
Miller: Big problems were already popping up before Election Day--not just in Ohio, but in Pennsylvania, Florida, Minnesota, Texas and a lot of other places.
There was evidence of a concerted effort to disenfranchise Democrats by using fake opinion pollsters in Nevada, Oregon, New Jersey, West Virginia and elsewhere. There were intimidation tactics, blunt obstructionism, state disinformation drives, and even break-ins, all over the country.
There was interference with the huge vote of Americans abroad. All such evidence was on the public record--not in any prominent place, but out there on the record--prior to Nov. 2. After Bush & Co. miraculously won, all memory of those problems seemed to disappear completely from the national radar screen.
Did you encounter many obstacles in writing this book? For example, did you find that officials were reluctant to talk, or that records were difficult to obtain?
Miller: A lot of evidence was missing when I wrote the book and is still missing now.
For instance, we still don't have the raw precinct-level data that was used by the official exit pollsters. The media corporations that paid for it won't make it available to independent scholars. And certainly the politicians and the bureaucrats, the party operatives and corporate personnel, observed a stubborn silence on a broad range of electoral concerns.
Across the board, Republicans refused to answer questions; and a lot of Democrats were strangely eager not to talk about the numerous anomalies, contradictions, improprieties. Such stonewalling was a given, something that you had to work around.
The evidence in Fooled Again comes either from the public record, or from people not afraid or disinclined to tell the truth.
The mainstream media in this country have been reluctant to examine problems with the 2004 election. Why do you think this is?
Miller: The U.S. media does not provide the crucial civic service that the Framers had in mind when they extended constitutional protection to the press.
The U.S. press today, in other words, does not inform the people for the purpose of republican self-government. It answers not to us, but to its parent companies, their shareholders and advertisers, and, not least, the government, which keeps the cartel well-protected from the people.
Whereas America's free and independent press was meant to function as a major part of our great system of checks and balances, and thereby help to keep us free from state dominion, the juggernaut that we now call "the media" is itself an instrument of such dominion. It does not report the news so much as it determines which news is, and which news isn't, beneficial to those managing the state. (By and large, this process works not through conscious and deliberate policing from on high, but far more subtly, through the fears and needs and aspirations of the people working in the media at every level.)
This is why the U.S. press will not report whatever news might pose a threat to the political establishment. It's why they never did report the truth about Bush/Cheney's drive for war against Iraq, even though there always was abundant evidence against the claims that Bush & Co. were making. It's why they've quickly veered away from every story that, if followed through, could well have blown the Bush regime to smithereens: 9/11, Gannongate, Katrina.
And, worst of all, it's why the press refuses to report the ever-worsening condition of American democracy: last year's election fraud; the current push by Diebold to get its DRE machines into more precincts coast to coast, despite a growing wave of popular resistance; the mammoth money-laundering operation that was used to pay for the subversion of the race last year; the Bush regime's attempts to gut the Voting Rights Act; and so on.
Do you believe that our nation's election system problems will be fixed in time for the 2006 elections?
Miller: There simply isn't enough time. We do have time to get a good start on improving things considerably by 2008. Before the next election, there is time to organize a national grass-roots polling operation in the most important places. Such an effort--which ought to be bipartisan, or non-partisan--would at least provide us with a rough idea as to how accurate the final vote-count really is.
In the meantime, we must do everything we can to force the scandal of last year's election out into the light of day. Once people know what really happened, they will demand electoral reform, and then we can debate how best to do it. If, on the other hand, the people keep on thinking, or half-thinking, that that election was legitimate, reform will seem unnecessary.
"If it ain't broke, don't fix it." We have to tell the nation--and the world--that things are badly broken here. If we do not, American democracy will soon be past repair.
I'd imagine that, after reading your book, there will be many alarmed citizens out there who will be wondering what they can do to help ensure honest elections in the future in America. What would be your advice to them?
Miller: The effort must be local as well as national. Those concerned should learn about the voting system where they live and vote (or try to vote), and work to make it as efficient and transparent as possible.
There are currently aggressive efforts under way to get Diebold machines approved, or their use extended, in New York, Pennsylvania (Bucks County), North Carolina, Arizona and New Mexico. In all those places there are grass-roots movements dedicated to genuinely democratic systems and procedures.
If you live in such a place, join that movement. If there's no such movement and you see the need for one, start one up. If you don't think there's any need for one, devote yourself to working on the problem at the national level. (For a sense of the broad range of possibilities, check out VotersUnite.org.)
The national effort must begin with--again--a vast campaign to tell the people what went down last year. Be relentless. Tell your elected(?) representatives, and the media, to investigate the fraud last year, deal openly and thoroughly with the danger of election fraud right now, and to pursue the issue of electoral reform ASAP.
It simply will not happen if you don't demand it.
Overall, are you optimistic or pessimistic, long-term, about the fairness of elections in America?
Miller: The current system's rotten to the core. As far as the people are concerned, however, I'm an optimist. I'm confident that, when they learn the truth, they'll make the right decisions. That's why I wrote Fooled Again.
Wednesday, December 07, 2005
To Founding Fathers, Christmas Was No Big Deal
By MARC McDONALD
This holiday season, Fox News and the rest of the nation's right-wing echo chamber have decreed that "the war on Christmas" is the biggest issue facing America.
Silly me, and here I was thinking that perhaps the disastrous war in Iraq was the biggest issue facing us.
Self-appointed "moral watchdogs" like Bill O'Reilly want to put the "Christ" back into Christmas and restore the holiday to its supposed proper place in our nation's history as a religious observance. Anyone familiar with O'Reilly's work knows that he is the appropriate moral figure to make such a call.
O'Reilly's 1998 novel, Those Who Trespass, for example, is filled with Christian-inspired wisdom and moral clarity. It includes such heart-warming scenes as a 15-year-old prostitute who smokes crack cocaine and performs fellatio.
In a sense, I share some of Fox's appreciation of Christmas. I think it can be indeed a special day to Christians and I really would like to see it designated as a holiday in which every non-emergency worker gets to take off and spend time with his or her family.
This last point is particularly important to me. The Republicans, after all, have always ferociously fought against any government regulation requiring that businesses give time off to their employees. The U.S., after all, is alone in the First World in not requiring the private sector to give any vacation time to workers.
So, as someone who was required by my private sector employer to work every Christmas for 15 years, I would indeed like to see Christmas made into a holiday that everyone can enjoy (not just government employees like Bush).
However, someone needs to send a memo to the Fox News talking heads regarding the true place of Christmas in our nation's history. The fact is, Christmas was nothing special to our nation's Founding Fathers.
This uncomfortable fact would lodge like a lump of coal in the throats of America's right-wing (if only they were aware of it in the first place). Conservatives in this country are always busy painting the Founding Fathers as devout Christians. However, any serious historian will tell you that the Founding Fathers were in fact not Christians.
Nor was Christmas particularly important to our Founding Fathers (or the nation as a whole). The U.S. government didn't even recognize Christmas as a holiday until 1870. Until then, Congress routinely met and conducted business on Christmas day. It was, in fact, just another workday.
Truth be told, Christmas was a totally different affair during the first century of America's history. It was far removed from today's holiday in which families gather and open presents around the Christmas tree.
So how did one celebrate Christmas back in those days? Well, typically, you might start off the day getting blindingly drunk. Then, you'd take to the streets and approach passer-by and demand money from them. If they refused, you'd beat them up. You might conclude the day by smashing some store windows or breaking into people's homes and stealing their food. Peruse a newspaper from the 1820s and you can routinely read of such chaotic yuletide lawlessness.
In the early part of the 19th century, Christmas was, as one historian once noted, "like a nightmarish cross between Halloween and a particularly violent, rowdy Mardi Gras." In fact, a massive Christmas riot in 1828 led to the formation of New York City's first police force.
Indeed, newspapers of the era are filled with disturbing accounts of what Christmas was really like in those days: widespread rioting, sexual assault, vandalism, drunkenness, street violence and general lawlessness. Most of these "traditions" were carried over from Europe, where, dating back to the Middle Ages, Christmas had been regarded by the wealthy classes as a safety valve for releasing the peasants' pent-up frustrations.
Christmas as we know it today didn't really take root until the 1870s. In fact, the holiday as we know it today was invented by middle-class merchants in the late 19th century, primarily as a gimmick to increase sales. In this respect, Christmas hasn't changed much since then.
This holiday season, Fox News and the rest of the nation's right-wing echo chamber have decreed that "the war on Christmas" is the biggest issue facing America.
Silly me, and here I was thinking that perhaps the disastrous war in Iraq was the biggest issue facing us.
Self-appointed "moral watchdogs" like Bill O'Reilly want to put the "Christ" back into Christmas and restore the holiday to its supposed proper place in our nation's history as a religious observance. Anyone familiar with O'Reilly's work knows that he is the appropriate moral figure to make such a call.
O'Reilly's 1998 novel, Those Who Trespass, for example, is filled with Christian-inspired wisdom and moral clarity. It includes such heart-warming scenes as a 15-year-old prostitute who smokes crack cocaine and performs fellatio.
In a sense, I share some of Fox's appreciation of Christmas. I think it can be indeed a special day to Christians and I really would like to see it designated as a holiday in which every non-emergency worker gets to take off and spend time with his or her family.
This last point is particularly important to me. The Republicans, after all, have always ferociously fought against any government regulation requiring that businesses give time off to their employees. The U.S., after all, is alone in the First World in not requiring the private sector to give any vacation time to workers.
So, as someone who was required by my private sector employer to work every Christmas for 15 years, I would indeed like to see Christmas made into a holiday that everyone can enjoy (not just government employees like Bush).
However, someone needs to send a memo to the Fox News talking heads regarding the true place of Christmas in our nation's history. The fact is, Christmas was nothing special to our nation's Founding Fathers.
This uncomfortable fact would lodge like a lump of coal in the throats of America's right-wing (if only they were aware of it in the first place). Conservatives in this country are always busy painting the Founding Fathers as devout Christians. However, any serious historian will tell you that the Founding Fathers were in fact not Christians.
Nor was Christmas particularly important to our Founding Fathers (or the nation as a whole). The U.S. government didn't even recognize Christmas as a holiday until 1870. Until then, Congress routinely met and conducted business on Christmas day. It was, in fact, just another workday.
Truth be told, Christmas was a totally different affair during the first century of America's history. It was far removed from today's holiday in which families gather and open presents around the Christmas tree.
So how did one celebrate Christmas back in those days? Well, typically, you might start off the day getting blindingly drunk. Then, you'd take to the streets and approach passer-by and demand money from them. If they refused, you'd beat them up. You might conclude the day by smashing some store windows or breaking into people's homes and stealing their food. Peruse a newspaper from the 1820s and you can routinely read of such chaotic yuletide lawlessness.
In the early part of the 19th century, Christmas was, as one historian once noted, "like a nightmarish cross between Halloween and a particularly violent, rowdy Mardi Gras." In fact, a massive Christmas riot in 1828 led to the formation of New York City's first police force.
Indeed, newspapers of the era are filled with disturbing accounts of what Christmas was really like in those days: widespread rioting, sexual assault, vandalism, drunkenness, street violence and general lawlessness. Most of these "traditions" were carried over from Europe, where, dating back to the Middle Ages, Christmas had been regarded by the wealthy classes as a safety valve for releasing the peasants' pent-up frustrations.
Christmas as we know it today didn't really take root until the 1870s. In fact, the holiday as we know it today was invented by middle-class merchants in the late 19th century, primarily as a gimmick to increase sales. In this respect, Christmas hasn't changed much since then.
Tuesday, December 06, 2005
Forget Exit Strategies, the U.S. Never Had An Entry Strategy In Iraq
By MARC McDONALD
As the U.S. sinks deeper and deeper into the blood-soaked sands of the Iraq quagmire, much of the debate here at home has focused on possible exit strategies from this fiasco. I have to admit, I don't feel confident that the U.S. can formulate a workable exit strategy when in fact we never really had an entry strategy that made sense.
The question remains: why exactly did the U.S. invade Iraq? It's a question that I think the families of the 2,128 dead soldiers are entitled to know. So are America's hard-pressed working-class and middle-class taxpayers, who've been forced to cough up $224 billion so far for this ongoing fiasco.
Ask any Republican nowadays why we invaded Iraq and you'll get a different answer each time. But you can't really blame GOP partisans; after all, their own leader expresses a new reason every day for why the U.S. invaded Iraq.
Bush can't seem to come up with a consistent reason for the Iraq war. One day he's talking about establishing democracy in Iraq. The next day, he blathers about the need to establish "stability" in the Middle East. The day after that, he'll insist that removing Saddam was crucial to bring about a safer world. And, of course, he never fails to once again try to link Iraq and 9/11.
Curiously, though, in trying to defend his war, Bush these days studiously avoids mentioning anything about WMDs---the reason he gave in the first place. Nor does he mention what a growing number of us suspect was the REAL reason for the invasion: so America could control Iraq's oil.
Many analysts believe that Bush found success in the 2004 election because he projected the image of a strong, decisive leader, while John Kerry was painted as a flip-flopper. It's strange then, that Bush in reality has flip-flopped repeatedly on an issue that no national leader should ever be less than decisive and honest about: launching a war.
It's clear that we never really had a good entry strategy for Iraq. The mirage of the non-existent WMDs evaporated quicker than the Bush team could hoist the now-infamous "Mission Accomplished" banner on the USS Abraham Lincoln in May 2003. It became clear early on that the war was based on lies, a fact that even Fox News was eventually forced to concede.
Bush has long condemned anyone who dares question his war as sending "mixed signals" to America's troops in Iraq. Personally, I think what sends "mixed signals" to our soldiers is when our nation's leader gives a new reason for the Iraq invasion every time he speaks. The fact is, Bush's own idiotic ramblings have done more to hurt the troops in Iraq than any comment war opponents have made. After all, it was Bush himself who taunted the insurgents with his "bring `em on" comment.
As far as Bush's ever-changing reasons for why we invaded Iraq, a reality check is in order:
1. To establish democracy in Iraq. Iraq is an ancient tribal-based culture that predates the birth of Christ. If anyone thinks the U.S. can waltz in and impose Western-style democracy at the barrel of a gun, they've been watching too much Faux News. Bush partisans maintain that Iraq now in fact has a "democracy." As for me, I say it's hard to tell what's really going on in a nation engulfed in a bloody civil war. The average Iraqi on the street is too busy dodging bullets and car bombs these days to give much thought to lofty political ideals.
2. To establish stability in the Middle East. Before 9/11, Osama Bin Laden was a marginal figure in the Islamic world. Most educated Islamic people regarded him with a mixture of loathing and downright embarrassment. The bloody U.S. occupation of Iraq has done more to generate hatred toward the U.S. and to radicalize the Islamic world than anything Bin Laden could have accomplished in a thousand years of recruiting for Al Qaeda.
3. To fight the war on terror. When Bush makes this particular statement his "flavor of the day" excuse I can't help but laugh at the dishonesty of it all. But don't take my world for it. Ask the U.S. State Department, which released a report in April that revealed that terrorist attacks worldwide in 2004 tripled over 2003 (which in turn was the worst year for terrorist attacks in two decades). Or ask the former Sept. 11 Commission, which in a report Monday, charged the U.S. government of failing to protect the country against another terrorist attack.
There's an old saying in Texas: "If you don't like the weather, wait 15 minutes and it'll change." That sounds a lot like Bush and his ever-changing reasons for his war in Iraq. Call me pessimistic, but I get the feeling that the U.S. isn't going to be able to come up with a solid exit strategy from this mess when we never really had a honest entry strategy in the first place.
As the U.S. sinks deeper and deeper into the blood-soaked sands of the Iraq quagmire, much of the debate here at home has focused on possible exit strategies from this fiasco. I have to admit, I don't feel confident that the U.S. can formulate a workable exit strategy when in fact we never really had an entry strategy that made sense.
The question remains: why exactly did the U.S. invade Iraq? It's a question that I think the families of the 2,128 dead soldiers are entitled to know. So are America's hard-pressed working-class and middle-class taxpayers, who've been forced to cough up $224 billion so far for this ongoing fiasco.
Ask any Republican nowadays why we invaded Iraq and you'll get a different answer each time. But you can't really blame GOP partisans; after all, their own leader expresses a new reason every day for why the U.S. invaded Iraq.
Bush can't seem to come up with a consistent reason for the Iraq war. One day he's talking about establishing democracy in Iraq. The next day, he blathers about the need to establish "stability" in the Middle East. The day after that, he'll insist that removing Saddam was crucial to bring about a safer world. And, of course, he never fails to once again try to link Iraq and 9/11.
Curiously, though, in trying to defend his war, Bush these days studiously avoids mentioning anything about WMDs---the reason he gave in the first place. Nor does he mention what a growing number of us suspect was the REAL reason for the invasion: so America could control Iraq's oil.
Many analysts believe that Bush found success in the 2004 election because he projected the image of a strong, decisive leader, while John Kerry was painted as a flip-flopper. It's strange then, that Bush in reality has flip-flopped repeatedly on an issue that no national leader should ever be less than decisive and honest about: launching a war.
It's clear that we never really had a good entry strategy for Iraq. The mirage of the non-existent WMDs evaporated quicker than the Bush team could hoist the now-infamous "Mission Accomplished" banner on the USS Abraham Lincoln in May 2003. It became clear early on that the war was based on lies, a fact that even Fox News was eventually forced to concede.
Bush has long condemned anyone who dares question his war as sending "mixed signals" to America's troops in Iraq. Personally, I think what sends "mixed signals" to our soldiers is when our nation's leader gives a new reason for the Iraq invasion every time he speaks. The fact is, Bush's own idiotic ramblings have done more to hurt the troops in Iraq than any comment war opponents have made. After all, it was Bush himself who taunted the insurgents with his "bring `em on" comment.
As far as Bush's ever-changing reasons for why we invaded Iraq, a reality check is in order:
1. To establish democracy in Iraq. Iraq is an ancient tribal-based culture that predates the birth of Christ. If anyone thinks the U.S. can waltz in and impose Western-style democracy at the barrel of a gun, they've been watching too much Faux News. Bush partisans maintain that Iraq now in fact has a "democracy." As for me, I say it's hard to tell what's really going on in a nation engulfed in a bloody civil war. The average Iraqi on the street is too busy dodging bullets and car bombs these days to give much thought to lofty political ideals.
2. To establish stability in the Middle East. Before 9/11, Osama Bin Laden was a marginal figure in the Islamic world. Most educated Islamic people regarded him with a mixture of loathing and downright embarrassment. The bloody U.S. occupation of Iraq has done more to generate hatred toward the U.S. and to radicalize the Islamic world than anything Bin Laden could have accomplished in a thousand years of recruiting for Al Qaeda.
3. To fight the war on terror. When Bush makes this particular statement his "flavor of the day" excuse I can't help but laugh at the dishonesty of it all. But don't take my world for it. Ask the U.S. State Department, which released a report in April that revealed that terrorist attacks worldwide in 2004 tripled over 2003 (which in turn was the worst year for terrorist attacks in two decades). Or ask the former Sept. 11 Commission, which in a report Monday, charged the U.S. government of failing to protect the country against another terrorist attack.
There's an old saying in Texas: "If you don't like the weather, wait 15 minutes and it'll change." That sounds a lot like Bush and his ever-changing reasons for his war in Iraq. Call me pessimistic, but I get the feeling that the U.S. isn't going to be able to come up with a solid exit strategy from this mess when we never really had a honest entry strategy in the first place.
Thursday, November 24, 2005
What We Progressives Have to be Thankful For
By MARC MCDONALD
At first glance, it might appear that we on the left don't have much to celebrate this Thanksgiving. After all, the country is ruled by a criminal Republican administration. Young working-class Americans are dying daily in Iraq for an illegal and immoral war. And America seems to be going to hell in a hand basket (made, of course, in China--the same nation that is financing our nation's nightmarish trade and fiscal deficits).
But this Thanksgiving, it's important to remember that, despite all that is wrong in Bush's America, we progressives still have a number of things to be thankful for:
1. Cindy Sheehan. When you gather today with your family to celebrate Thanksgiving, give a word of thanks for this brave mother of a fallen soldier, who is once again returning to Crawford. Sheehan stood up to the forces of the right and demanded accountability from Bush over his immoral war when no one else would, including our gutless mainstream media.
2. U.S. Rep. John Murtha. He was a brave soldier who served in Vietnam and he continues to show his bravery as a politician, daring to speak the painful truth about the Iraq war. His wise words carry weight, too, (as indeed they should coming from a twice-wounded retired Marine Corps colonel).
3. BuzzFlash and the rest of the growing progressive online media. These might not be the best of times for the American left, but I'll say one thing: today, we are more networked and informed than ever, thanks to online alternative media. With the rise of the Internet, the media is splintering into thousands of independent voices, that corporate America (much to its horror) cannot control.
4. The prospect of impeachment. Granted, this one probably has a remote chance of ever happening, at least as long as the GOP controls Congress. But admit it, it's something that is at least fun to fantasize about, as we watch the ongoing TreasonGate investigation unfold.
5. Tom DeLay's indictment. Delay is the first House leader to be indicted while in office in at least a century and, man, has this case been entertaining to watch.
6. Bev Harris. The director of Black Box Voting (which refers to voting on electronic machines that do not print paper ballots) is still out there on the front lines, working to make America's elections fair.
7. Air America. A breath of fresh air on the nation's airwaves, this growing radio network is a slap in the face to right-wing commentators who previously had arrogantly assured us that liberal talk radio would never fly.
8. John Conyers. Back in June, the Democrats finally re-discovered their backbone when Conyers kicked off a lonely fight against long odds to investigate the Downing Street memo.
9. Bill Maher and Jon Stewart. Some of the smartest, and funniest, progressive discussions on the boob tube happen on Maher's HBO show. His only rival is the incredibly incisive and right-on-target political humor on Stewart's "The Daily Show."
10. Noam Chomsky. After all these years, this activist, author and national treasure is still telling the truths that America needs to hear. Chomsky's inspiring words of wisdom are more important than ever today.
At first glance, it might appear that we on the left don't have much to celebrate this Thanksgiving. After all, the country is ruled by a criminal Republican administration. Young working-class Americans are dying daily in Iraq for an illegal and immoral war. And America seems to be going to hell in a hand basket (made, of course, in China--the same nation that is financing our nation's nightmarish trade and fiscal deficits).
But this Thanksgiving, it's important to remember that, despite all that is wrong in Bush's America, we progressives still have a number of things to be thankful for:
1. Cindy Sheehan. When you gather today with your family to celebrate Thanksgiving, give a word of thanks for this brave mother of a fallen soldier, who is once again returning to Crawford. Sheehan stood up to the forces of the right and demanded accountability from Bush over his immoral war when no one else would, including our gutless mainstream media.
2. U.S. Rep. John Murtha. He was a brave soldier who served in Vietnam and he continues to show his bravery as a politician, daring to speak the painful truth about the Iraq war. His wise words carry weight, too, (as indeed they should coming from a twice-wounded retired Marine Corps colonel).
3. BuzzFlash and the rest of the growing progressive online media. These might not be the best of times for the American left, but I'll say one thing: today, we are more networked and informed than ever, thanks to online alternative media. With the rise of the Internet, the media is splintering into thousands of independent voices, that corporate America (much to its horror) cannot control.
4. The prospect of impeachment. Granted, this one probably has a remote chance of ever happening, at least as long as the GOP controls Congress. But admit it, it's something that is at least fun to fantasize about, as we watch the ongoing TreasonGate investigation unfold.
5. Tom DeLay's indictment. Delay is the first House leader to be indicted while in office in at least a century and, man, has this case been entertaining to watch.
6. Bev Harris. The director of Black Box Voting (which refers to voting on electronic machines that do not print paper ballots) is still out there on the front lines, working to make America's elections fair.
7. Air America. A breath of fresh air on the nation's airwaves, this growing radio network is a slap in the face to right-wing commentators who previously had arrogantly assured us that liberal talk radio would never fly.
8. John Conyers. Back in June, the Democrats finally re-discovered their backbone when Conyers kicked off a lonely fight against long odds to investigate the Downing Street memo.
9. Bill Maher and Jon Stewart. Some of the smartest, and funniest, progressive discussions on the boob tube happen on Maher's HBO show. His only rival is the incredibly incisive and right-on-target political humor on Stewart's "The Daily Show."
10. Noam Chomsky. After all these years, this activist, author and national treasure is still telling the truths that America needs to hear. Chomsky's inspiring words of wisdom are more important than ever today.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
