Six Years of National Tragedy: A Wiki

In the spirit of Wikipedia, I thought it would be fun and useful for us to do a Wiki-like diary. It's six years today since Bush and his mafia took over our country. What better occasion than this for us to list the ways in which these people have damaged our country? I'll start the ball rolling! (And remember to add links!)

Today, 20 January 2007, marks the sixth anniversary of George W. Bush's inauguration as president. Following the stolen 2000 election, the first true coup d'etat in American history, the Republicans completed the seizure of all three branches of the federal government, the first time since 1929 that all of them were under the control of conservatives. (The mind reels.) What followed was an unmitigated disaster, a nightmare of incompetence, lies, malice, criminality, corruption, and hypocrisy. There has not been one good thing about Bush's presidency, and I mean nothing. Anything positive has been purely accidental, minor, and peripheral to the main goals of the Bush administration. The list of Bush lies, foul-ups, diasters, and criminality is as follows:

--Anti-terrorism was downgraded in importance in the early months of the Bush Administration, as John Ashcroft was more interested in fighting drugs than fighting Al Qaeda.

--The Hart-Rudman commission's recommendations were ignored or downplayed.

--A direct warning of Bin Laden's intentions was tossed into Bush's lap on 6 August 2001. Bush promptly went on vacation for five weeks.

--On the terrible day of 11 September 2001, Bush sat stunned and useless when he heard the news of the strike about which he had been clearly warned.

--After 9/11, Bush squandered the good will of the entire world and decided to use the attacks for partisan political advantage.

Now, it's your turn. Go for it!

Not If People Like Me Can Help It

There is a growing consensus among historians that George W. Bush will someday be seen as one of the worst presidents in U.S. history, if not the very worst. I personally think he's neck and neck with James Buchanan, who let the U.S. slide toward civil war between 1857 and 1861. Bush has been so horrible a national "leader" that it would seem as if nothing could save his legacy. But the various right wing deep pockets that are financing the "Bush library" (a contradiction in terms if ever I've heard one) are apparently intending to use it a means of spreading pro-Bush propaganda to try to salvage W's wretchedly bad reputation:

Shortly after Thanksgiving, the New York Daily News reported: "Eager to begin refurbishing his tattered legacy, the President hopes to raise $500 million to build his library and a think tank at Southern Methodist University in Dallas."

The half-billion target is double what Bush raised for his 2004 reelection and dwarfs the funding of other presidential libraries. But Bush partisans are determined to have a massive pile of endowment cash to spread the gospel of a presidency that for now gets poor marks from many scholars and a majority of Americans.

The legacy-polishing centerpiece is an institute, which several Bush insiders called the Institute for Democracy. Patterned after Stanford University's Hoover Institution, Bush's institute will hire conservative scholars and "give them money to write papers and books favorable to the President's policies," one Bush insider said. [Emphasis added.]

This does not apparently jibe with academic notions of what academia should be about among some academicians at Southern Methodist University. "[C]reating an academic center with a specific goal of boosting the Bush image and agenda strikes many professors as antithetical to a university's academic values," reported Inside Higher Ed last month. SMU's theology department has drafted a letter -- supported by dozens of faculty members -- expressing concern about "two distinct, irreconcilable visions" for the Bush presidential center: a "neutral space" library and a "partisan place" conservative think tank.

Yes, Bush's toads are going to try to spread outright damned lies in support of the worst American president in more than 140 years. We can presume they'll ignore Bush's disgraceful personal history and rotten private conduct. They'll ignore Bush's dropping the ball on the pre-9/11 intelligence and his scared rabbit behavior on that terrible day itself. They'll ignore the lies and cherry-picked intelligence that got us into the Iraq disaster. They'll ignore the monstrous deficits, the swollen debt, the condemnation of the rest of the world, the environmental irresponsibility, the right-wing corruption that saturated Congress and the presidency both, and all the other hallmarks of Bush's incredible malice and incompetence. They will try to substitute mythology for fact and hero worship for cold, hard truth.

But you know something? There are lots of people who hate Bush and his administration as fiercely as I do (and some even more, if you can believe it). We are people who love this country and despise Bush and his minions for doing such terrible harm to it. We read history and we know American politics well. And we will wage the academic war against the right wing lies that will try to make Bush seem like the Second Coming. We will fight these lies relentlessly, tirelessly, and incessantly. We will be heard, and we will prevail. Why?

Because we stand on the side of reality. And one way or another, reality has a nasty habit of always winning in the end.

Sliding Toward Insanity

I am more convinced than ever that the Bush Administration is trying to provoke a war with Iran (and perhaps Syria). Such a war, coming as it would in the midst of the Iraq catastrophe, would be a disaster of historic magnitude. Bush is not being advised by rational voices of any kind. All such people have been purged. He is, instead, surrounded by neocon fanatics baying for blood. Glenn Greenwald has taken note of a particularly perverse one, neocon Arthur Herman, who is demanding a massive series of military operations to destroy Iran's bridges, ports, and other facilities and seize its energy resources. Glenn's opinion of this is worth reporting:

The very idea that we are going to launch a unilateral bombing campaign against Iran, shatter its infrastructure, and then seize its oil assets is pure insanity of the highest order. There is no other way to describe that. And that would be true at any time, let alone when we are bogged down in the greatest strategic disaster in our nation's history, where our already horrendous position could be worsened immeasurably by Iran.

One feels absurd even dignifying Herman's "analysis" with a substantive response. It really is the stuff of the babbling prophet standing on a cardboard box in the 1980s version of Times Square.

But with the fate of our Iraq occupation sealed through the end of the Bush presidency, the most pressing question is whether the Leader will use the last two years of his presidency to provoke some sort of military confrontation with Iran, and people like Herman are not standing on boxes in Times Square where they belong, but instead are writing in Commentary, which continues to exert real influence among the radicals who have driven our country into the state it is currently in...

Read the whole post. And then resolve to take action.

Is Bush the New Lincoln?

Only in the sense that both are technically brain dead.

See this clip for more info.

Bush's Response to the Wishes of the American People

They're Comin' Up Democratic!

Good news indeed from the new Pew Research Study: (pdf)

Gen Next: More Democratic, More Liberal

Trends in party identification suggest that this generation of young people is more Democratic than the generation that came before it. In the 2004 presidential election, where they turned out in near record numbers, young voters chose John Kerry over George Bush by a decisive margin. Majorities of the older age groups backed Bush. And in the 2006 mid-term elections for Congress, young people voted overwhelmingly for Democrats over Republicans, by 58%-37% among all 18-24 year-olds, according to national exit polls. These voting patterns reflect a broader Democratic leaning among Gen Nexters. In 2006, 48% of young people identified themselves as Democrats or leaned toward the Democratic Party, while only 35% identified themselves as Republicans – the lowest number recorded by Pew in its nearly 20-year trend. This makes them the least Republican generation. [Emphasis added]

Outstanding! People tend to stay close to their original voting orientation (although obviously not always). I differ with the whole concept of "generation" but it's good to see so many younger voters choosing to side with the one major party that is actually trying to save this country. This bodes very well for a Democratic future. I guess after seeing a total screwup Republican in charge, it's only natural for young people to reject him--and his miserable, lying, corrupt friends and allies.

(Hat tip: Sully)

Eric Alterman Rips the "Surge"

Check him out here. I like this statement:

Bush is like a man who is dealt two kings in blackjack (after 9-11) when the dealer is showing a three, doubles down instead of playing his winner hand, gets two twos, and continues to double down over and over and over until he loses his family's life savings and insurance policy. Kristol, Krauthammer, and Kaplan, et al, are like the Vegas floozies with fake boobs telling him what a big man he is the whole time, stroking his thighs while picking his pockets ... (Oh, and John "Maverick" McCain is the long-suffering wife ...)

Heh heh heh.

Sigh. A Man Can Dream, Can't He?

WE'RE SAYING NO

We, as in the vast majority of the American people, 89% of whom oppose the so-called "surge" (i.e., escalation) in Iraq. We've had enough. We've had all the Bush-Cheney-McCain-Neocon lies and distortions we can take.

Former General Wesley Clark has come out foursquare against the whole disastrous notion:

Wesley Clark, the former Nato commander who led the 1999 war in Kosovo, is urging President George Bush not to send more troops to Iraq, saying the "surge" in forces being considered by the White House would be too little, too late and could only deepen the hole that the United States and its allies have dug themselves.

Writing exclusively in The Independent on Sunday, General Clark said the time for a military solution was long past, that US troops lack the skills and the political legitimacy to pacify the conflict-ridden regions, and that the only way forward was a political initiative encompassing the entire region.

"We've never had enough troops in Iraq," writes General Clark, who was the Supreme Allied Commander of Nato forces from 1997-2000. "In Kosovo, we had 40,000 troops for a population of two million. For Iraq, that ratio would call for at least 500,000 troops so adding 20,000 now is too little, too late."

"What the surge would do is put more American troops in harm's way, further undercut US forces' morale, and risk further alienation of elements of the Iraqi populace," he added.

General Clark's words come just days before a speech by Mr Bush, scheduled for Wednesday, in which he is expected to outline a new strategy. The word "surge" suggests a short, sharp injection of overwhelming military force, but even proponents of an increased troop presence say the forces would need to stay at least into 2008.

Virtually everyone is deserting Bush on this issue. Virtually everyone is rejecting his pathetic, borderline insane "leadership". Even Utah--yes, Utah, the most Republican state in the nation--no longer has a majority in favor of Bush's handling of the war. The American people have REJECTED the right wing Republicans and their catastrophic foreign policy. They--WE--are saying no. And by God, we better be listened to. There will be consequences if we're not.

And the Monkey King won't like them.

Haw! Bush's Approval Rating Sinks to 30 in CBS Poll

And that's big compared to his approval rating on Iraq.

Miserable failure indeed.

By the way, check out the figure for those optimistic about the new Democratic Congress: 68%.

He Has All the Instincts of a Dictator

Bush is now claiming the right to open your mail in "emergency" circumstances. This claim is in a signing statement the flatly contradicts the bill Bush just signed. He has done similar things 750 times.

The Feds already reserve the right to read your e-mails.

Habeas corpus rights have been effectively suspended.

Bush already supports warrantless wiretaps.

The government already spies on antiwar groups.

How the hell long are we going to put up with the right wing Republicans who run the Executive Branch using our Bill of Rights as a door mat?

"Bipartisanship"? Hell No! The People Are in Favor of the DEMOCRATIC Agenda

Read 'em and weep, right wing toads.

Where I Stand

For anyone new to this blog, or just for my old friends who would be interested in seeing my views summarized, I offer the following list, without too many details:

SOCIAL ISSUES

ABORTION. I am negative on this option. It is only remotely justifiable in the first trimester. Unborn humans become legal persons, in my view, with the onset of brainwave activity. I favor wide open access to birth control for all people and generous adoption policies.

BIRTH CONTROL: A fundamental human right, and that includes for unmarried people as well. Any pharmacist who doesn't want to dispense birth control needs to find a new profession.

GUN CONTROL: I'm against it, generally. No, people shouldn't be allowed to own surface to air missiles or things like that, but within very wide limits I think people should be able to own whatever weapons they choose, with background checks prohibiting ownership to the mentally ill and known felons.

GAY MARRIAGE: I am for it. Period.

AFFIRMATIVE ACTION: A well meaning policy that has not done what its supporters had hoped. It should be used to give the talented poor a leg up, not just members of certain categories.

DRUGS: Marijuana should be legalized and taxed. The prohibition on other drugs is one I am more leery of removing, but I'm willing to listen to arguments either way.

SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE. I am strongly for it. No using the public schools as religious forums during class time. No officially sponsored prayer. (Before or after school religious study groups, prayer sessions, etc., are fine with me.) No teaching creationism in any form. No officially sponsored Ten Commandments postings. America is a republic, not a theocracy, and it must be kept that way.

SEXUAL CONDUCT: As long as everybody involved is an adult and everybody involved says yes, the state has no interest in private sexual conduct. (This includes prostitution, which should be state regulated as a health issue, and adult pornography.) Child pornography and sex crimes against children should be punished relentlessly.

DEATH PENALTY: Under very carefully delineated conditions, I think it should be permitted.

ECONOMIC AND POLITICAL ISSUES

FREE ENTERPRISE: I'm all for it. This means no more corporate welfare, no more subsidies for Big Oil, no more using the tax code and earmarks to dispense favors to business. Everyone stands or falls on their own.

TRADE: Fair trade, not unlimited free trade.

UNIONS: They need to be strengthened and the limits the radical Right has imposed on them need to be removed.

NATIONAL HEALTH CARE: I am for it.

WELFARE AND POVERTY: Everyone should have to do something--work, school, community service, job training, etc.--to receive benefits. The Earned Income Credit needs to be expanded. A real push to abolish poverty by 2020.

ENERGY: A major, Manhattan Project style push for energy independence, with an emphasis on hybrid cars and renewable energy.

GLOBAL WARMING: Vigorous action to reduce greenhouse gases is needed NOW.

SPENDING AND TAXES: Restore tax levels on the richest Americans to what they were in 2000. Keep the Estate Tax. Eliminate tax loopholes and tax havens for the wealthy. Cut government spending generally. Work to reduce the national debt. Cut the deficit.

CIVIL LIBERTIES: No violations of the Bill of Rights in the name of fighting terror. No warrantless wiretaps. No dictatorial authority to the president.

EDUCATION: Strong emphasis on improving PUBLIC SCHOOLS. No to vouchers. No to rampant standardized test mania. No to the so-called "No Child Left Behind" law.

ENVIRONMENT: Preservation and conservation in the great tradition of Theodore Roosevelt. Enforcement of all environmental laws.

FOREIGN POLICY AND DEFENSE

IRAQ: Remove all American forces by January 2008. No more escalation of the war.

TERRORISM: All out push to restore order in Afghanistan. All out push to destroy Al Qaeda and other extremist outfits threatening us. Emphasize police and intelligence work in combating terrorism. No use of torture in combating terrorism.

AREAS OF CONCERN: Pakistan, North Korea, Russia, Iran, the Israeli-Palestinian problem. Diplomacy must be emphasized. Talk to our enemies. No attack on Iran or North Korea unless in retaliation for Iranian or North Korean attack on U.S. or U.S. forces. Restore America's image throughout the world.

So there, in a nutshell, is what I think. Generally pro-life, pro gun, negative on affirmative action, pro death penalty. Am I a conservative? Generally for having the government butt out of private conduct. Am I libertarian? Pro economic justice, pro union, pro national health care. Am I a liberal? I like to think I don't fall conveniently into any category. I just calls 'em as I sees 'em.

Just in Case You Missed It

Keith Olbermann was once again on fire last night, swinging the big hammer against the insanity of Bush's proposed new escalation of the war. Crooks and Liars has it here.

Say NO to the So-Called "Surge"

"Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results."--attributed to Albert Einstein

So the Chickenhawk in Chief seems to be determined to escalate the war in Iraq. Yes, that's right, escalate. The term "surge" is an obnoxious euphemism adopted by our PR obsessed right wing government to conceal the painfully obvious: Bush has no intention of drawing down U.S. involvement in Iraq, despite overwhelming opposition to his new plans. (Steve Benen in today's Washington Monthly has an excellent summary of the breadth of this opposition.) Bush and the Neocon fanatics that run U.S. foreign policy have learned nothing. They have rejected the findings of the Iraq Study Group. They are indifferent to the horrible suffering their incompetence has caused. They are convinced that the answer to failure is...more of the same. They will continue to oversee the disaster in Iraq. Some on the Neocon Right are also urging a massive new expansion--attacks on Iran and if "necessary", Syria. They will resist political pressures from the public, the military, and the Democratic Congress. They are, in short, determined to lead us into catastrophe.

Bush is an arrogant, emotionally crippled sociopath who is utterly incapable of admitting error. It is up to us to take the reins of government out of his hands. The Democrats, with the help of sane and moderate Republicans, must block Bush in both the House and Senate. He must NOT get his way this time. The so-called "surge" is simply a reflection of Bush's brain dead lack of imagination and courage. Bush has failed. He must now be stopped--or, if necessary, removed from office altogether. He will not change--and to think he will is, indeed, insanity.

Yes! The Onion Focuses on My Favorite Subject!

Can ya guess what it is? Well can ya?