WELCOME TO 2007….THINGS WILL BE DIFFERENT???
WORDS, WORDS AND MORE WORDS AS THE 110th CONGRESS CONVENES!
IN BAQUBAH, IRAQ — When U.S. forces killed the leader of Al Qaeda in Iraq, Abu Musab Zarqawi, six months ago in a village near Many government officials sleep on cots in their offices because drivBaqubah, they hoped security would improve in this strategic province north of Baghdad.
WORDS, WORDS AND MORE WORDS AS THE 110th CONGRESS CONVENES!
IN BAQUBAH, IRAQ — When U.S. forces killed the leader of Al Qaeda in Iraq, Abu Musab Zarqawi, six months ago in a village near Many government officials sleep on cots in their offices because drivBaqubah, they hoped security would improve in this strategic province north of Baghdad.
This is pretty much the “HOPE LINE” in Washington, but events in Baqubah are the coming reality that no one wants to talk about as they quietly attempt to duck the coming reality, hoping they have enough time to develop a good spin line.Instead of an orderly improvement of security; security has collapsed in Diyala province, now ranking as one of Iraq's most troubled regions.
Insurgent attacks have more than doubled in the last year. Violence has devastated the provincial police force and brought reconstruction to a virtual stand still.Assassinations have claimed the lives of mayors, tribal chieftains, police officials and judges, including a Shiite Muslim member of the provincial council who was killed Tuesday.
Going home is too dangerous.Iraqi security forces have been implicated in so many abuses that the U.S. commander recently gave his Iraqi counterpart an angry lecture, likening the Iraqi troops to an "undisciplined rabble."U.S. and Iraqi officials interviewed in recent days blamed the sharp downturn on a combination of U.S. neglect and abuses by the Iraqi army. U.S. troops largely disengaged from security here for weeks at a time, they say, handing the reins to Iraqi forces who proved to be abusive and ineffective.
And what do we have? Words, words, words and more words! Pull out; send more troops, examine involuntary universal public service as a back door DRAFT; bipartisan cooperation in the 110th…a total sham!
Do you have the feeling that the current crop of “Once upon a time stories” is just that; stories, words, words, words?
Tuesday’s Washington Post article, selected excerpts of which follow, makes a crucial point that we advocates for Impeachment and War Crimes proceedings have to keep at the front of our thinking.
The war in Iraq is not yet having the TYPE of impact on the general population as the Vietnam conflict generated.
What lessons did we learn from that conflict? Not the right ones, obviously.
We have not learned to assess both the short term and long term consequences of our actions. We have not learned that if you are going to wage war, you should do so with (Powell) “over whelming force”! The conclusion of World War II taught us that and Colin Powell kept trying to remind of that fact, to no avail as those in power, having no military experience, reduced the Iraq War to a political equation, a failed equation!
Then what did we learn? We learned how to manage the press coverage of war, maximizing the initial assault, and gradually minimizing coverage of the real personal toll of the war in terms of human wreckage.
Then what did we learn? We learned how to manage the press coverage of war, maximizing the initial assault, and gradually minimizing coverage of the real personal toll of the war in terms of human wreckage.
With 9/11 our government herded the American public into mental bunkers, a task easily accomplished given the existing American preferences for denial and the assumption of the all too popular “Ostrich Position” when confronted by harsh realities that impacted “OTHER PEOPLE AND OTHER FAMILIES”.
Add a little social deflection like, Abortion, Stem Cell Research, Gay Issues to thet bag of political tricks and you produce an American public with a feel good sense of Civic Engagement as they pour out their “values voter venom” of moral righteousness and outrage, clamoring for constitutional reforms while their government has its own agenda of Constitutional disassembly.
Add a little social deflection like, Abortion, Stem Cell Research, Gay Issues to thet bag of political tricks and you produce an American public with a feel good sense of Civic Engagement as they pour out their “values voter venom” of moral righteousness and outrage, clamoring for constitutional reforms while their government has its own agenda of Constitutional disassembly.
Why not; “we can get away with it!”
Not until the realization, that this war has been going on too long and is costing too much, combined with the daily Washington Corruption Report, plus a few personal and local concerns added to mix were the voters, deluged with hefty loads of campaign dung, fed up enough to do something…vote.
Not until the realization, that this war has been going on too long and is costing too much, combined with the daily Washington Corruption Report, plus a few personal and local concerns added to mix were the voters, deluged with hefty loads of campaign dung, fed up enough to do something…vote.
And there is the rub. Voting is easy, yet so few are motivated to do so, and those who do have a sizable sub set of Americans who feel that, that is all they have to do and all will be better, not well.
That is not the way it works. All this talk, words, words, words means very little when it comes down to the REAL ISSUES of what needs to happen in this country.
So let’s see what will happen. Those who advocate real legislative reform, holding our government accountable and dealing with reality are the minority, a minority that, if left alone, will engage and will generate the force necessary to shake up Washington. Let someone else do it! Thank You; we will!!!
With Iraq War Come Layers of Loss
As Troops' Lives Are Forever Changed, Much of U.S. Is Largely Unaffected
By Ann Scott Tyson and Josh White
Washington Post Staff WritersTuesday, January 2, 2007; Page A01
Like an emotional manifestation of the laws of physics, the casualties have rippled across the American psyche -- those close to the events have been profoundly moved, while those at some distance, THE MAJORITY OF AMERICANS, HAVE BEEN LARGELY UNAFFECTED.
For much of the rest of the country, the reverberations of the conflict are limited to headlines and television images of explosions or discussions about Iraq policy. THE NATION'S WAR DEAD ARE RETURNED TO THE UNITED STATES PRIVATELY, THEIR FLAG-DRAPED COFFINS SHIELDED FROM CAMERAS.
"THE FATAL FLAW WAS WHEN RIGHT AFTER SEPTEMBER 11 THE PRESIDENT ASKED EVERYONE TO GO ON WITH THEIR LIVES. THAT SET THE STAGE FOR NO ONE SACRIFICING," SAID A SPECIAL FORCES TEAM SERGEANT WHO RECENTLY SERVED IN IRAQ.
That is not the way it works. All this talk, words, words, words means very little when it comes down to the REAL ISSUES of what needs to happen in this country.
So let’s see what will happen. Those who advocate real legislative reform, holding our government accountable and dealing with reality are the minority, a minority that, if left alone, will engage and will generate the force necessary to shake up Washington. Let someone else do it! Thank You; we will!!!
With Iraq War Come Layers of Loss
As Troops' Lives Are Forever Changed, Much of U.S. Is Largely Unaffected
By Ann Scott Tyson and Josh White
Washington Post Staff WritersTuesday, January 2, 2007; Page A01
Like an emotional manifestation of the laws of physics, the casualties have rippled across the American psyche -- those close to the events have been profoundly moved, while those at some distance, THE MAJORITY OF AMERICANS, HAVE BEEN LARGELY UNAFFECTED.
For much of the rest of the country, the reverberations of the conflict are limited to headlines and television images of explosions or discussions about Iraq policy. THE NATION'S WAR DEAD ARE RETURNED TO THE UNITED STATES PRIVATELY, THEIR FLAG-DRAPED COFFINS SHIELDED FROM CAMERAS.
"THE FATAL FLAW WAS WHEN RIGHT AFTER SEPTEMBER 11 THE PRESIDENT ASKED EVERYONE TO GO ON WITH THEIR LIVES. THAT SET THE STAGE FOR NO ONE SACRIFICING," SAID A SPECIAL FORCES TEAM SERGEANT WHO RECENTLY SERVED IN IRAQ.
"THAT'S WHY THEY AREN'T BEHIND IT, BECAUSE THEY DON'T HAVE A STAKE IN THIS WAR. THEY AREN'T LOSING OR GAINING ANYTHING. IF YOU DON'T SEE IT, SMELL IT, FEEL IT, HOW ARE YOU CONNECTED?"
After paying tribute to President Gerald R. Ford as he lay in state over the weekend, Katy Dotson, a high school teacher from West Milford, N.J., said she struggles with the number of American lives that have been lost in the Iraq war. Dotson, 24, SAID SHE RECENTLY SAT IN ON A COLLEAGUE'S CURRENT-EVENTS CLASS AND WAS STRUCK TO SEE HOW LITTLE THE STUDENTS KNEW ABOUT THE CONFLICT AND ITS VICTIMS.
"MOST AMERICANS DON'T UNDERSTAND THAT PEOPLE ARE NUMBERS AND NUMBERS ARE PEOPLE," SHE SAID. THEY GRASP THE GRAVITY OF THE SITUATION ONLY WHEN TRAGEDY STRIKES CLOSE TO HOME. "WE HAD ONE YOUNG MAN DIE FROM OUR TOWN," SHE SAID. "IT WAS A VERY BIG DEAL. THE POST OFFICE WAS RENAMED AFTER HIM."
Democratic leaders set to take control of Congress tomorrow are facing mounting pressure from activists to chart a more confrontational course on Iraq and the issues of human rights and civil liberties, the call for the impeachment of President Bush and a growing number of legally powerful focusing on the Bush War Crimes Issue before the High Court of Germany.
The carefully calibrated legislative blitz, (the political equivalent of “Shock and Awe”, and we know how effective that pyrotechnic display was), that we Democrats have devised for the first 100 hours of power has left some activists worried the passion that swept the party to power in November is already dissipating into a new round of business as usual: WORDS, WORDS, WORDS. Include me in that group of skeptics because all I hear is 2008, 2008, 2008! If we don’t really act on the behalf of the people of this nation now; 2008 will be too late!
Protesters will greet the new congressional leaders at the Capitol tomorrow. They will not be disgruntled conservatives wary of Democratic control, but liberals, our own, bent on demanding a ban on torture, an end to warrantless domestic spying and a restoration of curbed civil liberties, and Impeachment of the criminals now “acting” as the legitimate leaders of this land.
The protest will be followed by an evening forum calling for the president's impeachment, led by the Center for Constitutional Rights, antiwar activist Cindy Sheehan and a pro-impeachment group called World Can't Wait.
(Notification Insert)
Voices for Impeachment:Jan. 4, 7pm, National Press Club, Washington DCSpeakers to include Cindy Sheehan; John Nichols; Michael Ratner, Center for Constitutional Rights*; Debra Sweet; & a special message from Gore Vidal
(Resume Conversation)
The afore stated priorities will not be in evidence inside the Capitol, as the newly sworn-in Democratic Congress will immediately begin work on new ethics rules, the reinstitution of federal deficit controls and new policies designed to increase civility in House proceedings. In the coming weeks, the plan is to pass bills designed to raise the minimum wage, lower prescription drug costs for Medicare recipients and interest rates for student borrowers, bolster homeland security and boost alternative energy research.
After paying tribute to President Gerald R. Ford as he lay in state over the weekend, Katy Dotson, a high school teacher from West Milford, N.J., said she struggles with the number of American lives that have been lost in the Iraq war. Dotson, 24, SAID SHE RECENTLY SAT IN ON A COLLEAGUE'S CURRENT-EVENTS CLASS AND WAS STRUCK TO SEE HOW LITTLE THE STUDENTS KNEW ABOUT THE CONFLICT AND ITS VICTIMS.
"MOST AMERICANS DON'T UNDERSTAND THAT PEOPLE ARE NUMBERS AND NUMBERS ARE PEOPLE," SHE SAID. THEY GRASP THE GRAVITY OF THE SITUATION ONLY WHEN TRAGEDY STRIKES CLOSE TO HOME. "WE HAD ONE YOUNG MAN DIE FROM OUR TOWN," SHE SAID. "IT WAS A VERY BIG DEAL. THE POST OFFICE WAS RENAMED AFTER HIM."
Democratic leaders set to take control of Congress tomorrow are facing mounting pressure from activists to chart a more confrontational course on Iraq and the issues of human rights and civil liberties, the call for the impeachment of President Bush and a growing number of legally powerful focusing on the Bush War Crimes Issue before the High Court of Germany.
The carefully calibrated legislative blitz, (the political equivalent of “Shock and Awe”, and we know how effective that pyrotechnic display was), that we Democrats have devised for the first 100 hours of power has left some activists worried the passion that swept the party to power in November is already dissipating into a new round of business as usual: WORDS, WORDS, WORDS. Include me in that group of skeptics because all I hear is 2008, 2008, 2008! If we don’t really act on the behalf of the people of this nation now; 2008 will be too late!
Protesters will greet the new congressional leaders at the Capitol tomorrow. They will not be disgruntled conservatives wary of Democratic control, but liberals, our own, bent on demanding a ban on torture, an end to warrantless domestic spying and a restoration of curbed civil liberties, and Impeachment of the criminals now “acting” as the legitimate leaders of this land.
The protest will be followed by an evening forum calling for the president's impeachment, led by the Center for Constitutional Rights, antiwar activist Cindy Sheehan and a pro-impeachment group called World Can't Wait.
(Notification Insert)
Voices for Impeachment:Jan. 4, 7pm, National Press Club, Washington DCSpeakers to include Cindy Sheehan; John Nichols; Michael Ratner, Center for Constitutional Rights*; Debra Sweet; & a special message from Gore Vidal
(Resume Conversation)
The afore stated priorities will not be in evidence inside the Capitol, as the newly sworn-in Democratic Congress will immediately begin work on new ethics rules, the reinstitution of federal deficit controls and new policies designed to increase civility in House proceedings. In the coming weeks, the plan is to pass bills designed to raise the minimum wage, lower prescription drug costs for Medicare recipients and interest rates for student borrowers, bolster homeland security and boost alternative energy research.
WORDS, WORDS, WORDS!!! SPIN, POSTURE, BAND AIDS!!!
Nowhere in the “consensus-driven agenda” is legislation revisiting last year's establishment of military tribunals and suspending legal rights for suspected terrorists.
There IS NO PROPOSAL for a revision of the civil liberties provisions of the USA Patriot Act, a measure curbing warrantless wiretapping by the National Security Agency or an aggressive confrontation of the president on his Iraq war policies.
Except for those who are yet to be killed maimed or find their lives in ruin upon return to civilian life, the Iraq War has evolved in to yet another round of a war of WORDS, WORDS, WORDS!!!
To all activists and some brighter lawmakers, the agenda skirts ALL of the larger issues that damaged the president's approval ratings and torpedoed Republican control of Congress.
"WE'VE BEEN TOLD FOR MANY YEARS, 12 YEARS NOW, 'WAIT UNTIL WE GET IN POWER. THEN YOU'LL SEE THINGS CHANGE,' " SAID DEBRA SWEET, NATIONAL DIRECTOR OF WORLD CAN'T WAIT, A PRO-IMPEACHMENT GROUP HELPING TO ORGANIZE THE PROTEST. "WE'LL GIVE THEM A COUPLE OF MONTHS OR A FEW WEEKS TO SEE WHAT THEY COME UP WITH, BUT IF THEY DON'T DO SOMETHING VERY DECISIVE AROUND THE WAR AND THESE OTHER ISSUES, I THINK THERE WILL BE TROUBLE."
I AM NOT THAT PATIENT, AND I AM PREPARED TO DEAL WITH TROUBLE!
"If the first 100 hours is going to be characterized by an increase in the minimum wage and improved health and education benefits for Americans, that's fine," said Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio), typically labeled a liberal firebrand ,(he ran for president in 2004 and has announced for 2008). "BUT THEN LET'S TALK ABOUT THE SECOND HUNDRED HOURS, BECAUSE WE CANNOT LET THIS WAR BE LOST. WE CANNOT ABANDON THE TROOPS IN THE FIELD TO TEMPORIZING."
Oh Dennis; WORDS, WORDS, WORDS!!!
To most Democratic lawmakers, such activism presents a quandary. Americans have been so complacent, so apathetic, so withdrawn from the process and totally reluctant to stand up against a government that is clearly UNCONSTITUTIONAL in its’ orientation and goals.
House Republican leaders spent years trying to placate their conservative base with agendas built around opposition to same-sex marriage, antiabortion votes and tax cuts. The partisan tone enraged Democrats and ultimately alienated moderates and independents, who swept the GOP from power in November after a dozen years in control.
We Democrats have to be careful not to fall into these traps that paralyzed the Republicans. We have to shake off our own post 2004 paralysis and simply have the guts to do what is right!!!
Democratic lawmakers -- especially the freshmen who capitalized on voter discontent -- said their core supporters' anger is real and must be acknowledged.
"THOSE PEOPLE PROTESTING ON THURSDAY CARE DEEPLY ABOUT THEIR COUNTRY," SAID CAROL SHEA-PORTER OF NEW HAMPSHIRE, AN INCOMING HOUSE FRESHMAN WHO RAN AS AN ARDENT OPPONENT OF BUSH AND THE WAR. "I THINK WE DO NEED TO PAY ATTENTION. PEOPLE ARE BEGGING US TO REMEMBER THE CONSTITUTION, WHAT MADE THIS COUNTRY GREAT."
Lawmakers, who speak on the condition of anonymity for fear of alienating such voters, say wherever they go, they hear from activists calling for Bush's impeachment. Cutting off funding for the Iraq war comes in a close second. THERE IS THE REALITY THAT WE ARE ABOUT TO SHOUT!!! IT IS TIME!!!
For most progressive activists, there is generally speaking, an open mind but also a real fear that the 110th [Congress] will not be as aggressive as many of us want it to be.
Ralph G. Neas, president of People for the American Way says:. "On the other hand, there is a lot of pragmatism as we go into the 2008 election season. There's this high-wire act for everybody, not only for the House and Senate leadership but for the progressive community, too."
Ralph’s high-wire act will be on display almost as soon as the new Congress is sworn in.
The first motion from the House floor will be a parliamentary inquiry from Rep. Rush D. Holt (D-N.J.) on the disputed election to replace retired Rep. Katherine Harris (R-Fla.). In November's balloting, Republican Vern Buchanan beat Democrat Christine Jennings by 369 votes.
But more than 18,000 ballots that day did not record a vote in the closely contested race, an "undervote" rate of nearly 15 percent, mainly from the Democrat's stronghold of Sarasota County. An academic study, commissioned by the company that made the electronic voting machines, found "that there is essentially a 100 percent chance that Jennings would have won" had Sarasota voters cast their votes with different machines and ballots.
Holt's inquiry will make clear that Buchanan's swearing-in tomorrow should not prejudice or compromise a House investigation or ongoing legal challenges to his election. But that falls well short of activist demands that the seat be left vacant, or even that the House simply seat Jennings.
Holt said he is willing to take the heat for that decision. I AM HAPPY WHEN ANYONE AROUND HERE IS WILLING TO TAKE THE HEAT!
"There are some Democrats who say we should seize that seat any way we can," he acknowledged. "But if in a heavy-handed way, we just say we've got the votes and we're going to throw out Vern Buchanan, we would undermine the principle we say we are fighting for." This is florida!
Bye, Bye Bipartisanship. Dead Word, DEAD WORD!!!
As we prepare to take control of Congress this week and face up to campaign pledges to restore bipartisanship and openness, is has become clear that we are planning to largely sideline Republicans from the first burst of lawmaking. So much for that WORD!
In the House, the plan is to pass a package of “popular/safe” measures as part of the well-publicized plan for the first 100 hours, including tightening ethics rules for lawmakers, raising the minimum wage, allowing more research on stem cells and cutting interest rates on student loans.
Instead of allowing Republicans to fully participate in deliberations, as promised after OUR victory in the Nov. 7 midterm elections, we have changed our WORDS and now say we will use House rules to prevent the opposition from offering alternative measures, assuring speedy passage of the bills and allowing us to trumpet early victories. If that sounds like business as usual; that’s because it is!
Nancy Pelosi, our Californian who will become House speaker, and Steny H. Hoyer of Maryland, who will become majority leader, finalized the strategy over the holiday recess in a flurry of conference calls and meetings with other party leaders. A few Democrats, worried that the party would be criticized for reneging on an important pledge, argued unsuccessfully that they should grant the Republicans greater latitude when the Congress convenes on Thursday.
The episode illustrates the dilemma facing a new party in power. We must demonstrate that we can break legislative gridlock and govern after 12 years in the minority, while honoring their pledge to make the 110th Congress a civil era in which Democrats and Republicans work together to solve the nation's problems.
Now we have a problem with WORDS, WORDS, WORDS!!! We should never have uttered the word bipartisan. We should have simply focused on the legislative agenda and our goals. The voters are more interested in, at this point, results and not so much the process of achieving them, so long as it is legitimate. They are not going to be much interested in what names we call each other or the whining spin sound bites of complaint.
Yet in attempting to pass laws key to our prospects for winning reelection and expanding our majority, we may have to resort to some of the same tough tactics Republicans used the past several years. Now this should all come as no surprise. When you have spent years screaming: liars, crooks, criminals, unconstitutional, corrupt, thieves, dictatorial, investigations, impeachment, imprisonment, war crimes, etc., etc.; I don’t think that very many folks really believed all was to be forgiven and forgotten, and that we would all make nice.
Democratic leaders say they are torn between giving Republicans a say in legislation and shutting them out to prevent them from derailing Democratic bills.
"There is a going to be a tension there," said Rep. Chris Van Hollen (Md.), the new chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. "My sense is there's going to be testing periods to gauge to what extent the Republicans want to join us in a constructive effort or whether they intend to be disruptive. It's going to be a work in progress."
WORDS, WORDS, WORDS!!!
House Republicans have begun to complain that we are backing away from our promise to work cooperatively. WORDS, WORDS, WORDS!!! (WE ARE!) They are working on their own strategy for the first 100 hours, and part of it is built on the idea that they might be able to break the Democrats' slender majority by wooing away some conservative Democrats.
The intention is to introduce the first bills within hours of taking the oath of office on Thursday. The first legislation will focus on the behavior of lawmakers, banning travel on corporate jets and gifts from lobbyists and requiring lawmakers to attach their names to special spending directives and to certify that such earmarks would not financially benefit the lawmaker or the lawmaker's spouse.
That bill is aimed at bringing legislative transparency that Democrats said was lacking under Republican rule. Don’t go floating this one as a big issue at your local Starbucks unless you want a laugh. There seems to be more than a little cynicism surrounding this one!
Democratic leaders said they are not going to allow Republican input into the ethics package and other early legislation, because several of the bills have already been debated and dissected, including the proposal to raise the minimum wage, which passed the House Appropriations Committee in the 109th Congress, said Brendan Daly, a spokesman for Pelosi.
"We've talked about these things for more than a year," he said. "The members and the public know what we're voting on. So in the first 100 hours, we're going to pass these bills."
But because the details of the Democratic proposals have not been released, some language could be new. DALY SAID DEMOCRATS ARE STILL COMMITTED TO SHARING POWER WITH THE MINORITY DOWN THE LINE.
"THE TEST IS NOT THE FIRST 100 HOURS," HE SAID. "THE TEST IS THE FIRST SIX MONTHS OR THE FIRST YEAR. WE WILL DO WHAT WE PROMISED TO DO." Ok more WORDS, WORDS, WORDS, and do you know what they mean? Well, it means we’re going to flex our muscles early, crow loudly, ignore Republican gripes and criticisms, and then we’ll get to the serious stuff and we don’t know what the hell we’re going to do. As you will see later, again, it’s all about doing easy popular legislation and trying to figure out how to what the people (VOTERS) really want done AND GET REELECTED! Such a game…WORDS, WORDS, WORDS… and too many members of Congress still believe that most people are ignorant of the fact that we understand their song and dance.
For clues about how the Democrats will operate, the spotlight is on the House, where the new 16-seat majority will hold absolute power over the way the chamber operates. Most of the early legislative action is expected to stem from the House.
It's in the nature of the House of Representatives for the majority party to be dominant and control the agenda and limit as much as possible the influence of the minority. Institutionally, it's almost counter to the essence of the place for the majority and minority to share responsibility for legislation. Chew on that perspective for a few moments.
In the Senate, by contrast, the Democrats will have less control over business because of our razor-thin 51-to-49-seat margin and because individual senators wield substantial power. Senate Democrats will allow Republicans to make amendments to all their initiatives, starting with the first measure -- ethics and lobbying reform, said Jim Manley, spokesman for the incoming majority leader, Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.).
It will be a polite waste of time to permit the amendments, but that’s how the “Good Ole Boys” works. One side will herald beating down the amendments and the loser will go home to his/her constituency and curse out the Democrats for defeating them. WORDS, WORDS, WORDS and campaign sound bites for everybody. What constructive fun…NOT!!!
THOSE SAME DEMOCRATS, WHO CAMPAIGNED ON A PLEDGE OF MORE OPENNESS IN GOVERNMENT, WILL KICK OFF THE NEW CONGRESS WITH A CLOSED MEETING OF ALL SENATORS IN THE CAPITOL. MANLEY SAID THE POINT OF THE MEETING IS TO FIGURE OUT WAYS BOTH PARTIES CAN WORK TOGETHER.
Democratic leaders said they are not going to allow Republican input into the ethics package and other early legislation, because several of the bills have already been debated and dissected, including the proposal to raise the minimum wage, which passed the House Appropriations Committee in the 109th Congress, said Brendan Daly, a spokesman for Pelosi.
"We've talked about these things for more than a year," he said. "The members and the public know what we're voting on. So in the first 100 hours, we're going to pass these bills."
But because the details of the Democratic proposals have not been released, some language could be new. DALY SAID DEMOCRATS ARE STILL COMMITTED TO SHARING POWER WITH THE MINORITY DOWN THE LINE.
"THE TEST IS NOT THE FIRST 100 HOURS," HE SAID. "THE TEST IS THE FIRST SIX MONTHS OR THE FIRST YEAR. WE WILL DO WHAT WE PROMISED TO DO." Ok more WORDS, WORDS, WORDS, and do you know what they mean? Well, it means we’re going to flex our muscles early, crow loudly, ignore Republican gripes and criticisms, and then we’ll get to the serious stuff and we don’t know what the hell we’re going to do. As you will see later, again, it’s all about doing easy popular legislation and trying to figure out how to what the people (VOTERS) really want done AND GET REELECTED! Such a game…WORDS, WORDS, WORDS… and too many members of Congress still believe that most people are ignorant of the fact that we understand their song and dance.
For clues about how the Democrats will operate, the spotlight is on the House, where the new 16-seat majority will hold absolute power over the way the chamber operates. Most of the early legislative action is expected to stem from the House.
It's in the nature of the House of Representatives for the majority party to be dominant and control the agenda and limit as much as possible the influence of the minority. Institutionally, it's almost counter to the essence of the place for the majority and minority to share responsibility for legislation. Chew on that perspective for a few moments.
In the Senate, by contrast, the Democrats will have less control over business because of our razor-thin 51-to-49-seat margin and because individual senators wield substantial power. Senate Democrats will allow Republicans to make amendments to all their initiatives, starting with the first measure -- ethics and lobbying reform, said Jim Manley, spokesman for the incoming majority leader, Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.).
It will be a polite waste of time to permit the amendments, but that’s how the “Good Ole Boys” works. One side will herald beating down the amendments and the loser will go home to his/her constituency and curse out the Democrats for defeating them. WORDS, WORDS, WORDS and campaign sound bites for everybody. What constructive fun…NOT!!!
THOSE SAME DEMOCRATS, WHO CAMPAIGNED ON A PLEDGE OF MORE OPENNESS IN GOVERNMENT, WILL KICK OFF THE NEW CONGRESS WITH A CLOSED MEETING OF ALL SENATORS IN THE CAPITOL. MANLEY SAID THE POINT OF THE MEETING IS TO FIGURE OUT WAYS BOTH PARTIES CAN WORK TOGETHER.
I’m just not going to waste space on that one!!!
IN THE HOUSE, LOUISE M. SLAUGHTER (D-N.Y.), WHO WILL CHAIR THE RULES COMMITTEE, SAID SHE INTENDS TO BRING OPENNESS TO A COMMITTEE THAT USED TO MEET IN THE MIDDLE OF THE NIGHT. IN THE NEW CONGRESS, THE PANEL -- WHICH SETS THE TERMS OF DEBATE ON THE HOUSE FLOOR -- WILL CONVENE AT 10 A.M. BEFORE A ROOMFUL OF REPORTERS.
We’ll just have to wait and see if this is a one-time special event.
"It's going to be open," Slaughter said of the process. "Everybody will have an opportunity to participate." Would anyone like to define “Participate”? Is that a dictionary definition or a Pelosi pontification?
At the same time, she added, the majority would grant Republicans every possible chance to alter legislation once it reaches the floor. "We intend to allow some of their amendments, not all of them," Slaughter said.
For several reasons, House Democrats are assiduously trying to avoid some of the heavy-handed tactics they resented under GOP rule. They say they want to prove to voters they are setting a new tone on Capitol Hill. But they are also convinced that Republicans lost the midterms in part because they were perceived as arrogant and divisive.
"WE'RE GOING TO MAKE AN IMPRESSION ONE WAY OR THE OTHER," SAID ONE DEMOCRATIC LEADERSHIP AIDE. "IF IT'S NOT POSITIVE, WE'LL BE OUT IN TWO YEARS."
CONTINUING; BIPARTISANSHIP D.O.A.
House Republicans say their strategy will be to offer alternative bills that would be attractive to the conservative "Blue Dog" Democrats, with AN EYE TOWARD FRACTURING THE DEMOCRATIC COALITION. They hope to force some tough votes for Democrats from conservative districts who will soon begin campaigning for 2008 reelection and will have to defend their records. Nice reasonable WORDS, WORDS, WORDS…NOT!!!
"WE'LL CAPITALIZE ON EVERY OPPORTUNITY WE HAVE," said one GOP leadership aide, adding that Republicans were preparing alternatives to the Democrats' plans to raise the minimum wage, reduce the interest on student loans, and reduce the profits of big oil and energy companies.
Several Blue Dog Democrats said they do not think Republicans can pick up much support from their group.
"If they've got ideas that will make our legislation better, we ought to consider that," said REP. ALLEN BOYD JR. (D-FLA.), LEADER OF THE BLUE DOGS. "But if their idea is to try to split a group off to gain power, that's what they've been doing for the past six years, and it's all wrong."
To keep her sometimes-fractious coalition together, Pelosi has been distributing the spoils of victory across the ideological spectrum, trying to make sure that no group within the Democratic Party feels alienated. Would you like to count up and name who is currently p…ed off?
Blue Dogs picked up some plum committee assignments, with Jim Matheson (Utah) landing a spot on Energy and Commerce and A.B. "Ben" Chandler (Ky.) getting an Appropriations seat. At the same time, members of Black and Hispanic caucuses obtained spots on these panels, as Ciro Rodriguez (Tex.) was given a seat on Appropriations and Artur Davis (Ala.) took the place of Democrat William J. Jefferson (La.) on Ways and Means.
Democrats acknowledge that if they appear too extreme in blocking the opposing party, their party is sure to come under fire from the Republicans, who are already charging they are being left out of the legislative process.
OH PLEASE; GET REAL; WE’RE GOING TO COME UNDER FIRE FOR JUST GETTING UP IN THE MORNING!!!
If you're talking about 100 hours, you're talking about no obstruction whatsoever, no amendments offered other than those approved by the majority; there are many who would like to think after 100 hours are over, the Democrats will adhere to their promise to make the system a little more equitable. But experience tells me it's really not going to happen that way, and few really believe it anyway. Folks just don’t believe all those WORDS, WORDS, WORDS!!!
The temptations to rule the roost with an iron hand are very strong. It would take a majority party of uncommon sensitivity and a firm sense of its own agenda to open up the process in any significant degree to minority. But hope springs eternal, if you believe the WORDS, WORDS, WORDS!!!
If you're talking about 100 hours, you're talking about no obstruction whatsoever, no amendments offered other than those approved by the majority; there are many who would like to think after 100 hours are over, the Democrats will adhere to their promise to make the system a little more equitable. But experience tells me it's really not going to happen that way, and few really believe it anyway. Folks just don’t believe all those WORDS, WORDS, WORDS!!!
The temptations to rule the roost with an iron hand are very strong. It would take a majority party of uncommon sensitivity and a firm sense of its own agenda to open up the process in any significant degree to minority. But hope springs eternal, if you believe the WORDS, WORDS, WORDS!!!
Now when we Democrats take power on Capitol Hill this week, House leaders will kick off their legislative campaign with a lightning-fast 100-hour agenda, but don’t hold your breath; there won't be a revolution.
We are not bent on the destruction of traditions, institutional structures or perverting the Constitution. In marked contrast to the Republicans who swept into the majority in 1994, incoming use Speaker Pelosi and her legislative allies are not planning to amend the Constitution or eradicate federal agencies.
INSTEAD, THEIR INITIAL LEGISLATIVE FORAY WILL FOCUS ON MODEST, POLITICALLY POPULAR ISSUES, INCLUDING INITIATIVES TO EXPAND STEM CELL RESEARCH, LOWER PRESCRIPTION DRUG PRICES AND TIGHTEN CONGRESSIONAL ETHICS RULES.
Pelosi's program is expected/predicted to receive a warm/polite reception on Capitol Hill, even from some Republicans. Less clear is whether Democrats can follow up with solutions to the deeper problems that are troubling a restive public. And this is where we have to perform.
This is where we have to have the guts and courage that the American people are longing to see…a Congress advocating for the needs of the people and willing to do those things they consider equitable, necessary and just, including the Impeachment of George W. Bush and Dick Cheney.
They don’t want to talk about it, or argue about it; sick and tired enough of a growing tyranny they simple want an oblique move through process and a conclusion. All the rest of the WORDS, WORDS, and WORDS are just so much spineless gibberish and cowardice.Polls show that most Americans are looking to Congress, rather than the president, for leadership, particularly on resolving the war in Iraq.
Now let me put this is solid perspective for you. I had a long distance phone call from my youngest brother as I was preparing this posting, and while he pays attention to developments, he certainly is not involved with these issues almost every minute of the day like I am, and it is his opinion that this war is lost and that Bush won’t be happy until he gets 4,000 Americans killed over there; that Impeachment is fine but just won’t happen fast enough.
This is a man who voted against Joe Lieberman with the full conviction that Joe would win in November. He is still unhappy with Joe. This is a mainstream American voter when it comes to Iraq and George Bush and message is: “It (Iraq) is over, and he (Bush) should be gone!
This is where we have to have the guts and courage that the American people are longing to see…a Congress advocating for the needs of the people and willing to do those things they consider equitable, necessary and just, including the Impeachment of George W. Bush and Dick Cheney.
They don’t want to talk about it, or argue about it; sick and tired enough of a growing tyranny they simple want an oblique move through process and a conclusion. All the rest of the WORDS, WORDS, and WORDS are just so much spineless gibberish and cowardice.Polls show that most Americans are looking to Congress, rather than the president, for leadership, particularly on resolving the war in Iraq.
Now let me put this is solid perspective for you. I had a long distance phone call from my youngest brother as I was preparing this posting, and while he pays attention to developments, he certainly is not involved with these issues almost every minute of the day like I am, and it is his opinion that this war is lost and that Bush won’t be happy until he gets 4,000 Americans killed over there; that Impeachment is fine but just won’t happen fast enough.
This is a man who voted against Joe Lieberman with the full conviction that Joe would win in November. He is still unhappy with Joe. This is a mainstream American voter when it comes to Iraq and George Bush and message is: “It (Iraq) is over, and he (Bush) should be gone!
And that ladies and gentlemen is the underlying sentiment that is going to drive this nation’s activists in an ever quickened pace to rid this land of Bush and Cheney.
Yet Pelosi and the Democrats plan no dramatic steps to influence the course of the war. Nor has the new majority detailed strategies to tackle other challenges that have confounded lawmakers for years, including rising healthcare costs and the financially imperiled Social Security system.
These issues are not without resolution. The Congress must get outside of the box and think anew. Throw the band aid box away!
These issues are not without resolution. The Congress must get outside of the box and think anew. Throw the band aid box away!
I will address in detail both of these matters in future postings. That this nation is without universal health care insurance equal to that of the members of Congress is not only a disgrace, but is grounds for holding them to be in contempt of the people of this nation.
If we the people make universal healthcare coverage a priority issue to the extent that we send the message that any legislator would stands in the way of its enactment, does not move to secure such coverage, be he or she Democrat or Republican, they will be voted from office on this issue alone; we will have the program before you know it.
For now, the relatively safe 100-hour agenda may simply allow the Democrats to show they can accomplish something after a dozen years in the political wilderness. One of the things the public is definitely looking for is results and not just another "do-nothing" record of the previous GOP-led Congress, and more WORDS, WORDS AND WORDS!!!
You just have to look at Arnold Schwarzenegger to get an idea of how important that is. California's recently reelected Republican governor salvaged his political fortunes by reaching across the aisle to rack up a series of substantive policy accomplishments.
But finding a majority on Capitol Hill to agree on even small measures can be challenging. Democrats will hold just a one-vote advantage in the Senate, where rules allow the minority party to stall, slow and amend legislation.
At the same time, ideological divisions between the parties are wider than they were a generation ago, when moderates in both caucuses wielded greater influence.It also remains unclear how the president and the new Congress will work together. Though Bush and Democratic congressional leaders have pronounced themselves committed to compromise, they are coming off six years of fiercely partisan government.
And taking on a president, even a weakened one, is never easy for Congress. When Republicans challenged President Clinton over the budget after taking power in 1995, they were blamed after the federal government was forced to shut down during the face off.
"It's not going to be a cakewalk," said incoming Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.). "Just because you say you want to be bipartisan doesn't mean they're going to fall all over themselves to work with you."But the rapid-fire agenda that Pelosi has crafted to kick off Democratic rule carefully hits issues with broad popular appeal that may be hard for many Republicans to oppose.
Pelosi's proposed House ethics package — which would ban many gifts from lobbyists and identify members who insert earmarks into bills for spending on their pet projects — comes after scandals that voters blamed on Republicans.
The GOP never passed comprehensive ethics legislation, to the chagrin of many of the party's members.House Democrats are also talking about reinstating rules that would require any new tax cuts or spending increases to be offset by other cuts, a measure designed to reduce future budget deficits. That is another issue of concern to Americans, polls show.At the close of the last legislative session, some Republican lawmakers decried the spending excesses of their party, which has presided over record budget deficits despite its platform of fiscal restraint.
Democrats plan to liberalize federal funding for stem cell research, a popular initiative that was approved by bipartisan majorities in both chambers of Congress before the president vetoed it in July. And they are pledging to repeal a law passed in 2003 that prohibited the federal government from using its purchasing power to negotiate lower drug prices for Medicare recipients, a top concern of senior citizens.
Democrats plan to liberalize federal funding for stem cell research, a popular initiative that was approved by bipartisan majorities in both chambers of Congress before the president vetoed it in July. And they are pledging to repeal a law passed in 2003 that prohibited the federal government from using its purchasing power to negotiate lower drug prices for Medicare recipients, a top concern of senior citizens.
Again I would remind you that this is a band aid, not a solution to the medical care crisis plaguing our nation. That proposal, too, earlier won bipartisan support when the Senate voted in March to support the idea in concept.
Some of the 100-hour issues are so popular that opposition appears to have melted away. Representatives of the business community for a decade had been engaged in a struggle with organized labor to blunt any raise in the minimum wage. Yet now they say they see little chance of stopping the Democratic push to increase it to $7.25 an hour, from $5.15.It is uncertain whether Republican insistence on some tax relief for small businesses could hang up the measure. But few expect major battles.
"There's not much desire to start a fight on it. It's not winnable," said one business lobbyist. "The White House doesn't appear to have a lot of fight in them … [and] I don't think weakened Republican minorities are going to want to fight.
"EVEN SOME OIL EXECUTIVES HAVE SAID THEY DON'T NEED ALL OF THE TAX BREAKS THE GOVERNMENT HAS GRANTED THE INDUSTRY IN RECENT YEARS. HOUSE DEMOCRATS HAVE PROMISED TO REPEAL A NUMBER OF THEM.
Twelve years ago, the House Republican caucus that Newt Gingrich led into the majority set a very different tone, filling its agenda with a number of highly contentious issues that touched off bruising battles with the minority party.In its "Contract With America," the GOP pledged to place term limits on lawmakers, slash taxes, cut welfare benefits and curtail the rights of death row inmates to appeal their sentences.
So controversial were some of the proposals that several never even made it out of the Senate, which was also controlled by Republicans at the time. Gingrich also made no secret of his plans to roll over Clinton.Republicans did something that was very foolish by essentially claiming that the president was irrelevant and Clinton deftly out maneuvered them, and Republicans lost seats in the next election.
However the Democratic leaders feel about President Bush no one in any position of authority has proclaimed that President Bush is irrelevant, only a lying despotic criminal, or as my brother said this morning: “Ask people to tell you the last time Bush told the truth.”
Once we Democrats move beyond the popular items in their first 100 hours, however, their challenges will mount.Americans overwhelmingly want Congress and the White House to address the war in Iraq first.
In a recent Gallup Poll, 69% said the war should be the top priority, compared with 16% who cited the economy, which was second.
BY CONTRAST, THE ITEMS ON THE 100-HOUR AGENDA RANKED FAR DOWN ON THE LIST.
House and Senate Democrats have planned a series of oversight hearings in January to focus attention on the war. And several senior Democrats have pledged to fight any proposal to send more troops to Iraq. A very dangerous game is emerging on this matter and the WORDS, WORDS AND WORDS involuntary universal service must be watched at every mention.
But the new majority has indicated it will shy away from asserting its real power to shape the war: using budgetary authority to restrict spending. "We will have oversight," Pelosi said recently. "We will not cut off funding."
THIS IS THE WORDS, WORDS AND WORDS GAME AT ITS’ WORST.
THIS IS THE WORDS, WORDS AND WORDS GAME AT ITS’ WORST.
This war is a failed debacle. There is nothing that this country or the world is prepared to do to spare Iraq from the growing inevitable disaster. The fall out will imperil the Mid East and only when conditions and the threat that will emerge is disastrous enough, will the world stand up in the catastrophic clash of arms that will be labeled either WW III or WW IV. It matters not as the event will be what matters!
Equally uncertain is the fate of healthcare reform, another legislative quandary that has increased in urgency as THE NUMBER OF UNINSURED AMERICANS NEARS 47 MILLION. 47 of 300 million or 15.7% is criminally unacceptable!!!
Equally uncertain is the fate of healthcare reform, another legislative quandary that has increased in urgency as THE NUMBER OF UNINSURED AMERICANS NEARS 47 MILLION. 47 of 300 million or 15.7% is criminally unacceptable!!!
Last month, Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) unveiled an ambitious proposal for universal health insurance, but neither Pelosi nor Reid has promised to revisit the controversial issue. And without Bush's support, the prospects for such a far-reaching plan are slim.
WAKE UP CONGRESS! WHAT DO YOU GET PAID FOR? ARE YOU NOT INTELLIGENT ENOUGH TO UNDERSTAND THE PROBLEM? ARE YOU TOO COWARDLY TO CONSIDER AN ACT OF GREATNESS? YOU CAN BE REPLACED!!!
WAKE UP CONGRESS! WHAT DO YOU GET PAID FOR? ARE YOU NOT INTELLIGENT ENOUGH TO UNDERSTAND THE PROBLEM? ARE YOU TOO COWARDLY TO CONSIDER AN ACT OF GREATNESS? YOU CAN BE REPLACED!!!
Democratic leaders have reached out to the White House to discuss Social Security, the long-term solvency of which is a major challenge confronting the government.Incoming House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Charles B. Rangel (D-N.Y.) recently had lunch with Treasury Secretary Henry M. Paulson Jr., who is taking the lead for the administration on economic issues.In a recent interview, Rangel said both sides had reason to compromise.
"We have two years to prove that the voters were right, and the president has two years to prove that he's not a lame duck," he said. WORDS, WORDS AND WORDS!!!
The Bush administration has signaled that it might abandon its insistence that any reform include the creation of private accounts, a proposal that doomed Bush's 2005 Social Security plan. One of Pelosi's 100-hour promises is a pledge to fight "any attempt to privatize Social Security."
Last week, the president's conciliatory tone provoked alarm on the Wall Street Journal's editorial page, a leading outlet for conservative opinion."Uh-oh," concluded the newspaper's editorial board.
But as Democrats and Republicans look toward the next elections, a real solution to such a politically sensitive issue appears remote to some analysts. A REAL EQUITABLE SOLUTION would enshrine those who craft it. Politics first, problem solving last and in between more WORDS, WORDS AND WORDS!!!
"If something actually came of it," said Guy Molyneux of the Democratic polling firm Hart Research, "I'd be shocked." SO LET’S BE SHOCKED!!!
THE 2007 NOTE PAD ON ISSUES:
PROMISE: BREAK THE "LINK BETWEEN LOBBYISTS AND LEGISLATION.
THE 2007 NOTE PAD ON ISSUES:
PROMISE: BREAK THE "LINK BETWEEN LOBBYISTS AND LEGISLATION.
"What it means: Proposed House "rules package" includes a ban on gifts from lobbyists and full disclosure of all earmarks. Background: Proposals addressing lobbyist gifts, earmarks and other reforms stalled in the last Congress.Prospects: The rules wouldn't affect the Senate. Earmarks remain popular with lawmakers in both parties, but Democrats are under pressure to show real progress on ethics. *VIEWED WITH CYNICISM
PROMISE: COMMIT TO "NO NEW DEFICIT SPENDING.
"What it means: "Pay-as-you-go" rules require new spending and tax breaks to be offset with cuts.Background: Instituted in the 1990s to reduce the deficit, the rules were largely abandoned by the GOP. Prospects: With some Republicans grousing about their party's deficit spending, the rules have bipartisan support. But even the old rules were circumvented.*
VIEWED AS A WORDS, WORDS AND WORDS LIE
PROMISE: IMPLEMENT THE 9/11 COMMISSION'S RECOMMENDATIONS.
What it means: Includes a new intelligence oversight panel, a new requirement to screen all incoming cargo and other measures.Background: Two and a half years after the report, many of its recommendations have not been followed.Prospects: Democrats have backed away from promising to enact all the recommendations. Cargo screening is viewed warily by powerful retailers. *
CONGRESS IS CHICKEN ON THIS ONE AND LOOKING FOR BIG TROUBLE SOON
PROMISE: RAISE THE MINIMUM WAGE.
What it means: Increase the federal minimum wage from $5.15 an hour to $7.25 an hour.Background: Democrats blocked a wage hike in 2006 when Republicans tried to link it to tax cuts.Prospects: Popular among Democrats and moderate Republicans, but the White House and some Republicans still want to tie wage increases to tax breaks.
*THIS IS A BAND AID SO STOP PLAYING WITH THE TAX CUT CRAP
PROMISE: LOWER MEDICARE PRESCRIPTION DRUG PRICES.
*THIS IS A BAND AID SO STOP PLAYING WITH THE TAX CUT CRAP
PROMISE: LOWER MEDICARE PRESCRIPTION DRUG PRICES.
What it means: Repeal a ban on the government using its purchasing power to negotiate prices with pharmaceutical companies.Background: The Senate in March supported the concept of government-negotiated discounts but never repealed the ban. Prospects: Popular with seniors, and has bipartisan support. But opposing drug companies are influential. And key Democrats opposed earlier attempts.
ANOTHER BAND AID AND AN INSULT
Promise: Promote stem cell research.What it means: Increase federal funding for such research. Background: President Bush vetoed a similar measure in 2006.Prospects: The measure is likely to pass, but the president could veto it again.
THIS BATTLE MUST BE FOUGHT UNTIL IT IS WON
Promise: Cut interest rates on student loans in half.What it means: Cut the interest on subsidized loans used by more than 5 million students from 6.8% to 3.4%.Background: An effort by Democrats to cut rates on similar loans was defeated by House Republicans, who complained of the cost.Prospects: Though popular, the cuts could cost more than $18 billion over five years, which may galvanize opposition.
TO EDUCATE OUR KIDS OR NOT TO; THAT IS THE QUESTION
PROMISE: ROLL BACK "SUBSIDIES TO BIG OIL" COMPANIES.
What it means: Repeal some tax breaks and subsidies and create a fund to promote renewable energy.Background: Often over Democratic opposition, the GOP Congress passed tax breaks, in part to spur domestic production.Prospects: Bush and even industry leaders appear willing to give up some breaks. But they are unlikely to support all the rollbacks.*
THERE IS NOTHING WE CAN LOSE IN THIS FIGHT; SO LET’S HAVE AT IT
PROMISE: FIGHT ANY ATTEMPT TO PRIVATIZE SOCIAL SECURITY.
What it means: Resistance to any new push by Bush to create private accounts.Background: Democrats blocked Bush's plan in 2005.Prospects: The White House has shown willingness to negotiate over private accounts. Long-term change remains knotty for both parties.
THERE IS AN ANSWER, AND THIS IS NOT IT
TO THE BATTLE GROUND…
THERE IS AN ANSWER, AND THIS IS NOT IT
TO THE BATTLE GROUND…
Impeachment is ruled out in advance—“off the table” for both Nancy Pelosi and John Conyers, although Conyers sponsored an impeachment hearing for Bush in the basement of the Capitol building on June 19, 2005 and, although in terms of impeachable behavior, “Bush is the most impeachable president in American history” (Paul Craig Roberts).
BEWARE OF THINKING PEOPLE FOR THEY ARE DANGEROUS!
Who Will Save America? My Epiphany
By PAUL CRAIG ROBERTS
A number of readers have asked me when did I undergo my epiphany, abandon right-wing Reaganism and become an apostle of truth and justice.
I appreciate the friendly sentiment, but there is a great deal of misconception in the question.
When I saw that the neoconservative response to 9/11 was to turn a war against stateless terrorism into military attacks on Muslim states, I realized that the Bush administration was committing a strategic blunder with open-ended disastrous consequences for the US that, in the end, would destroy Bush, the Republican Party, and the conservative movement.
My warning was not prompted by an effort to save Bush's bacon. I have never been any party's political or ideological servant. I used my positions in the congressional staff and the Reagan administration to change the economic policy of the United States. In my efforts,
I found more allies among influential Democrats, such as Senate Finance Committee Chairman Russell Long, Joint Economic Committee Chairman Lloyd Bentsen and my Georgia Tech fraternity brother Sam Nunn, than I did among traditional Republicans who were only concerned about the budget deficit.
My goals were to reverse the Keynesian policy mix that caused worsening "Phillips curve" trade-offs between employment and inflation and to cure the stagflation that destroyed Jimmy Carter's presidency. No one has seen a "Phillips curve" trade-off or experienced stagflation since the supply-side policy was implemented. (These gains are now being eroded by the labor arbitrage that is replacing American workers with foreign ones.
My goals were to reverse the Keynesian policy mix that caused worsening "Phillips curve" trade-offs between employment and inflation and to cure the stagflation that destroyed Jimmy Carter's presidency. No one has seen a "Phillips curve" trade-off or experienced stagflation since the supply-side policy was implemented. (These gains are now being eroded by the labor arbitrage that is replacing American workers with foreign ones.
In January 2004 I teamed up with Democratic Senator Charles Schumer in the New York Times and at a Brookings Institution conference in a joint effort to call attention to the erosion of the US economy and Americans' job prospects by outsourcing.)
The supply-side policy used reductions in the marginal rate of taxation on additional income to create incentives to expand production so that consumer demand would result in increased real output instead of higher prices. No doubt, the rich benefitted, but ordinary people were no longer faced simultaneously with rising inflation and lost jobs. Employment expanded for the remainder of the century without having to pay for it with high and rising rates of inflation. Don't ever forget that Reagan was elected and re-elected by blue collar Democrats.
The left-wing's demonization of Ronald Reagan owes much to the Republican Establishment. The Republican Establishment regarded Reagan as a threat to its hegemony over the party.
The supply-side policy used reductions in the marginal rate of taxation on additional income to create incentives to expand production so that consumer demand would result in increased real output instead of higher prices. No doubt, the rich benefitted, but ordinary people were no longer faced simultaneously with rising inflation and lost jobs. Employment expanded for the remainder of the century without having to pay for it with high and rising rates of inflation. Don't ever forget that Reagan was elected and re-elected by blue collar Democrats.
The left-wing's demonization of Ronald Reagan owes much to the Republican Establishment. The Republican Establishment regarded Reagan as a threat to its hegemony over the party.
They saw Jack Kemp the same way. Kemp, a professional football star quarterback, represented an essentially Democratic district. Kemp was aggressive in challenging Republican orthodoxy. Both Reagan and Kemp spoke to ordinary people.
As a high official in the Reagan administration, I was battered by the Republican Establishment, which wanted enough Reagan success so as not to jeopardize the party's "lock on the presidency" but enough failure so as to block the succession to another outsider. Anyone who reads my book, The Supply-Side Revolution (Harvard University Press, 1984) will see what the real issues were.
If I had time to research my writings over the past 30 years, I could find examples of partisan articles in behalf of Republicans and against Democrats. However, political partisanship is not the corpus of my writings. I had a 16-year stint as Business Week's first outside columnist, despite hostility within the magazine and from the editor's New York social set, because the editor regarded me as the most trenchant critic of the George H.W. Bush administration in the business.
If I had time to research my writings over the past 30 years, I could find examples of partisan articles in behalf of Republicans and against Democrats. However, political partisanship is not the corpus of my writings. I had a 16-year stint as Business Week's first outside columnist, despite hostility within the magazine and from the editor's New York social set, because the editor regarded me as the most trenchant critic of the George H.W. Bush administration in the business.
The White House felt the same way and lobbied to have me removed from the William E. Simon Chair in Political Economy at the Center for Strategic and International Studies.
Earlier when I resigned from the Reagan administration to accept appointment to the new chair, CSIS was part of Georgetown University. The University's liberal president, Timothy Healy, objected to having anyone from the Reagan administration in a chair affiliated with Georgetown University. CSIS had to defuse the situation by appointing a distinguished panel of scholars from outside universities, including Harvard, to ratify my appointment.
I can truly say that at one time or the other both sides have tried to shut me down. I have experienced the same from "free thinking" libertarians, who are free thinking only inside their own box.
In Reagan's time we did not recognize that neoconservatives had a Jacobin frame of mind. Perhaps we were not paying close enough attention. We saw neoconservatives as former left-wingers who had realized that the Soviet Union might be a threat after all. We regarded them as allies against Henry Kissinger's inclination to reach an unfavorable accommodation with the Soviet Union. Kissinger thought, or was believed to think, that Americans had no stomach for a drawn-out contest and that he needed to strike a deal before the Soviets staked the future on a lack of American resolution.
Reagan was certainly no neoconservative. He went along with some of their schemes, but when neoconservatives went too far, he fired them. George W. Bush promotes them. The left-wing might object that the offending neocons in the Reagan administration were later pardoned, but there was sincere objection to criminalizing what was seen, rightly or wrongly, as stalwartness in standing up to communism.
Neoconservatives were disappointed with Reagan. Reagan's goal was to END the cold war, not to WIN it. He made common purpose with Gorbachev and ENDED the cold war. It is the new Jacobins, the neoconservatives, who have exploited this victory by taking military bases to Russian borders.
I have always objected to injustice. My writings about prosecutorial abuse have put me at odds with "law and order conservatives." I have written extensively about wrongful convictions, both of the rich and famous and the poor and unknown. My thirty-odd columns on the frame-up of 26 innocent people in the Wenatchee, Washington, child sex abuse witch hunt played a role in the eventual overturning of the wrongful convictions.
My book, with Lawrence Stratton, The Tyranny of Good Intentions, details the erosion of the legal rights that make law a shield of the innocent instead of a weapon in the hands of government. Without the protection of law, rich and poor alike are at the mercy of government. In their hatred of "the rich," the left-wing overlooks that in the 20th century the rich were the class most persecuted by government. The class genocide of the 20th century is the greatest genocide in history.
Americans have forgotten what it takes to remain free. Instead, every ideology, every group is determined to use government to advance its agenda. As the government's power grows, the people are eclipsed.
We have reached a point where the Bush administration is determined to totally eclipse the people. Bewitched by neoconservatives and lustful for power, the Bush administration and the Republican Party are aligning themselves firmly against the American people. Their first victims, of course, were the true conservatives. Having eliminated internal opposition, the Bush administration is now using blackmail obtained through illegal spying on American citizens to silence the media and the opposition party.
Before flinching at my assertion of blackmail, ask yourself why President Bush refuses to obey the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.
Earlier when I resigned from the Reagan administration to accept appointment to the new chair, CSIS was part of Georgetown University. The University's liberal president, Timothy Healy, objected to having anyone from the Reagan administration in a chair affiliated with Georgetown University. CSIS had to defuse the situation by appointing a distinguished panel of scholars from outside universities, including Harvard, to ratify my appointment.
I can truly say that at one time or the other both sides have tried to shut me down. I have experienced the same from "free thinking" libertarians, who are free thinking only inside their own box.
In Reagan's time we did not recognize that neoconservatives had a Jacobin frame of mind. Perhaps we were not paying close enough attention. We saw neoconservatives as former left-wingers who had realized that the Soviet Union might be a threat after all. We regarded them as allies against Henry Kissinger's inclination to reach an unfavorable accommodation with the Soviet Union. Kissinger thought, or was believed to think, that Americans had no stomach for a drawn-out contest and that he needed to strike a deal before the Soviets staked the future on a lack of American resolution.
Reagan was certainly no neoconservative. He went along with some of their schemes, but when neoconservatives went too far, he fired them. George W. Bush promotes them. The left-wing might object that the offending neocons in the Reagan administration were later pardoned, but there was sincere objection to criminalizing what was seen, rightly or wrongly, as stalwartness in standing up to communism.
Neoconservatives were disappointed with Reagan. Reagan's goal was to END the cold war, not to WIN it. He made common purpose with Gorbachev and ENDED the cold war. It is the new Jacobins, the neoconservatives, who have exploited this victory by taking military bases to Russian borders.
I have always objected to injustice. My writings about prosecutorial abuse have put me at odds with "law and order conservatives." I have written extensively about wrongful convictions, both of the rich and famous and the poor and unknown. My thirty-odd columns on the frame-up of 26 innocent people in the Wenatchee, Washington, child sex abuse witch hunt played a role in the eventual overturning of the wrongful convictions.
My book, with Lawrence Stratton, The Tyranny of Good Intentions, details the erosion of the legal rights that make law a shield of the innocent instead of a weapon in the hands of government. Without the protection of law, rich and poor alike are at the mercy of government. In their hatred of "the rich," the left-wing overlooks that in the 20th century the rich were the class most persecuted by government. The class genocide of the 20th century is the greatest genocide in history.
Americans have forgotten what it takes to remain free. Instead, every ideology, every group is determined to use government to advance its agenda. As the government's power grows, the people are eclipsed.
We have reached a point where the Bush administration is determined to totally eclipse the people. Bewitched by neoconservatives and lustful for power, the Bush administration and the Republican Party are aligning themselves firmly against the American people. Their first victims, of course, were the true conservatives. Having eliminated internal opposition, the Bush administration is now using blackmail obtained through illegal spying on American citizens to silence the media and the opposition party.
Before flinching at my assertion of blackmail, ask yourself why President Bush refuses to obey the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.
The purpose of the FISA court is to ensure that administrations do not spy for partisan political reasons. The warrant requirement is to ensure that a panel of independent federal judges hears a legitimate reason for the spying, thus protecting a president from the temptation to abuse the powers of government.
The only reason for the Bush administration to evade the court is that the Bush administration had no legitimate reasons for its spying. This should be obvious even to a naif.
The United States is undergoing a coup against the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, civil liberties, and democracy itself.
The United States is undergoing a coup against the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, civil liberties, and democracy itself.
The "liberal press" has been co-opted. As everyone must know by now, the New York Times has totally failed its First Amendment obligations, allowing Judith Miller to make war propaganda for the Bush administration, suppressing for an entire year the news that the Bush administration was illegally spying on American citizens, and denying coverage to Al Gore's speech that challenged the criminal deeds of the Bush administration.
The TV networks mimic Fox News' faux patriotism. Anyone who depends on print, TV, or right-wing talk radio media is totally misinformed. The Bush administration has achieved a de facto Ministry of Propaganda.
The years of illegal spying have given the Bush administration power over the media and the opposition. Journalists and Democratic politicians don't want to have their adulterous affairs broadcast over television or to see their favorite online porn sites revealed in headlines in the local press with their names attached. Only people willing to risk such disclosures can stand up for the country.
Homeland Security and the Patriot Act are not our protectors. They undermine our protection by trashing the Constitution and the civil liberties it guarantees. Those with a tyrannical turn of mind have always used fear and hysteria to overcome obstacles to their power and to gain new means of silencing opposition.
Consider the no-fly list. This list has no purpose whatsoever but to harass and disrupt the livelihoods of Bush's critics. If a known terrorist were to show up at check-in, he would be arrested and taken into custody, not told that he could not fly. What sense does it make to tell someone who is not subject to arrest and who has cleared screening that he or she cannot fly? How is this person any more dangerous than any other passenger?
If Senator Ted Kennedy, a famous senator with two martyred brothers, can be put on a no-fly list, as he was for several weeks, anyone can be put on the list. The list has no accountability. People on the list cannot even find out why they are on the list. There is no recourse, no procedure for correcting mistakes.
I am certain that there are more Bush critics on the list than there are terrorists. According to reports, the list now comprises 80,000 names! This number must greatly dwarf the total number of terrorists in the world and certainly the number of known terrorists.
How long before members of the opposition party, should there be one, find that they cannot return to Washington for important votes, because they have been placed on the no-fly list? What oversight does Congress or a panel of federal judges exercise over the list to make sure there are valid reasons for placing people on the list?
If the government can have a no-fly list, it can have a no-drive list. The Iraqi resistance has demonstrated the destructive potential of car bombs. If we are to believe the government's story about the Murrah Federal Office Building in Oklahoma City, Timothy McVeigh showed that a rental truck bomb could destroy a large office building.
The TV networks mimic Fox News' faux patriotism. Anyone who depends on print, TV, or right-wing talk radio media is totally misinformed. The Bush administration has achieved a de facto Ministry of Propaganda.
The years of illegal spying have given the Bush administration power over the media and the opposition. Journalists and Democratic politicians don't want to have their adulterous affairs broadcast over television or to see their favorite online porn sites revealed in headlines in the local press with their names attached. Only people willing to risk such disclosures can stand up for the country.
Homeland Security and the Patriot Act are not our protectors. They undermine our protection by trashing the Constitution and the civil liberties it guarantees. Those with a tyrannical turn of mind have always used fear and hysteria to overcome obstacles to their power and to gain new means of silencing opposition.
Consider the no-fly list. This list has no purpose whatsoever but to harass and disrupt the livelihoods of Bush's critics. If a known terrorist were to show up at check-in, he would be arrested and taken into custody, not told that he could not fly. What sense does it make to tell someone who is not subject to arrest and who has cleared screening that he or she cannot fly? How is this person any more dangerous than any other passenger?
If Senator Ted Kennedy, a famous senator with two martyred brothers, can be put on a no-fly list, as he was for several weeks, anyone can be put on the list. The list has no accountability. People on the list cannot even find out why they are on the list. There is no recourse, no procedure for correcting mistakes.
I am certain that there are more Bush critics on the list than there are terrorists. According to reports, the list now comprises 80,000 names! This number must greatly dwarf the total number of terrorists in the world and certainly the number of known terrorists.
How long before members of the opposition party, should there be one, find that they cannot return to Washington for important votes, because they have been placed on the no-fly list? What oversight does Congress or a panel of federal judges exercise over the list to make sure there are valid reasons for placing people on the list?
If the government can have a no-fly list, it can have a no-drive list. The Iraqi resistance has demonstrated the destructive potential of car bombs. If we are to believe the government's story about the Murrah Federal Office Building in Oklahoma City, Timothy McVeigh showed that a rental truck bomb could destroy a large office building.
Indeed, what is to prevent the government from having a list of people who are not allowed to leave their homes? If the Bush administration can continue its policy of picking up people anywhere in the world and detaining them indefinitely without having to show any evidence for their detention, it can do whatever it wishes.
Many readers have told me, some gleefully, that I will be placed on the no-fly list along with all other outspoken critics of the growth in unaccountable executive power and war based on lies and deception. It is just a matter of time. Unchecked, unaccountable power grows more audacious by the day. As one reader recently wrote, "when the president of the United States can openly brag about being a felon, without fear of the consequences, the game is all but over."
Congress and the media have no fight in them, and neither, apparently, do the American people. Considering the feebleness of the opposition, perhaps the best strategy is for the opposition to shut up, not merely for our own safety but, more importantly, to remove any impediments to Bush administration self-destruction.
The sooner the Bush administration realizes its goals of attacking Iran, Syria, and the Shia militias in Lebanon, the more likely the administration will collapse in the maelstrom before it achieves a viable police state. Hamas' victory in the recent Palestinian elections indicates that Muslim outrage over further US aggression in the Middle East has the potential to produce uprisings in Pakistan, Egypt, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia. Not even Karl Rove and Fox "News" could spin Bush out of the catastrophe.
Perhaps we should go further and join the neocon chorus, urging on invasions of Iran and Syria and sending in the Marines to disarm Hizbullah in Lebanon. Not even plots of the German High Command could get rid of Hitler, but when Hitler marched German armies into Russia he destroyed himself. If Iraq hasn't beat the hubris out of what Gordon Prather aptly terms the "neo-crazies," US military adventures against Iran and Hizbullah will teach humility to the neo-crazies.
Many patriotic readers have written to me expressing their frustration that fact and common sense cannot gain a toehold in a debate guided by hysteria and disinformation. Other readers write that 9/11 shields Bush from accountability, They challenge me to explain why three World Trade Center buildings on one day collapsed into their own footprints at free fall speed, an event outside the laws of physics except under conditions of controlled demolition. They insist that there is no stopping war and a police state as long as the government's story on 9/11 remains unchallenged.
They could be right. There are not many editors eager for writers to explore the glaring defects of the 9/11 Commission Report. One would think that if the report could stand analysis, there would not be a taboo against calling attention to the inadequacy of its explanations. We know the government lied about Iraqi WMD, but we believe the government told the truth about 9/11.
Debate is dead in America for two reasons: One is that the media concentration permitted in the 1990s has put news and opinion in the hands of a few corporate executives who do not dare risk their broadcasting licenses by getting on the wrong side of government, or their advertising revenues by becoming "controversial." The media follows a safe line and purveys only politically correct information. The other reason is that Americans today are no longer enthralled by debate. They just want to hear what they want to hear. The right-wing, left-wing, and libertarians alike preach to the faithful. Democracy cannot succeed when there is no debate.
Americans need to understand that many interests are using the "war on terror" to achieve their agendas. The Federalist Society is using the "war on terror" to achieve its agenda of concentrating power in the executive and packing the Supreme Court to this effect.
Many readers have told me, some gleefully, that I will be placed on the no-fly list along with all other outspoken critics of the growth in unaccountable executive power and war based on lies and deception. It is just a matter of time. Unchecked, unaccountable power grows more audacious by the day. As one reader recently wrote, "when the president of the United States can openly brag about being a felon, without fear of the consequences, the game is all but over."
Congress and the media have no fight in them, and neither, apparently, do the American people. Considering the feebleness of the opposition, perhaps the best strategy is for the opposition to shut up, not merely for our own safety but, more importantly, to remove any impediments to Bush administration self-destruction.
The sooner the Bush administration realizes its goals of attacking Iran, Syria, and the Shia militias in Lebanon, the more likely the administration will collapse in the maelstrom before it achieves a viable police state. Hamas' victory in the recent Palestinian elections indicates that Muslim outrage over further US aggression in the Middle East has the potential to produce uprisings in Pakistan, Egypt, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia. Not even Karl Rove and Fox "News" could spin Bush out of the catastrophe.
Perhaps we should go further and join the neocon chorus, urging on invasions of Iran and Syria and sending in the Marines to disarm Hizbullah in Lebanon. Not even plots of the German High Command could get rid of Hitler, but when Hitler marched German armies into Russia he destroyed himself. If Iraq hasn't beat the hubris out of what Gordon Prather aptly terms the "neo-crazies," US military adventures against Iran and Hizbullah will teach humility to the neo-crazies.
Many patriotic readers have written to me expressing their frustration that fact and common sense cannot gain a toehold in a debate guided by hysteria and disinformation. Other readers write that 9/11 shields Bush from accountability, They challenge me to explain why three World Trade Center buildings on one day collapsed into their own footprints at free fall speed, an event outside the laws of physics except under conditions of controlled demolition. They insist that there is no stopping war and a police state as long as the government's story on 9/11 remains unchallenged.
They could be right. There are not many editors eager for writers to explore the glaring defects of the 9/11 Commission Report. One would think that if the report could stand analysis, there would not be a taboo against calling attention to the inadequacy of its explanations. We know the government lied about Iraqi WMD, but we believe the government told the truth about 9/11.
Debate is dead in America for two reasons: One is that the media concentration permitted in the 1990s has put news and opinion in the hands of a few corporate executives who do not dare risk their broadcasting licenses by getting on the wrong side of government, or their advertising revenues by becoming "controversial." The media follows a safe line and purveys only politically correct information. The other reason is that Americans today are no longer enthralled by debate. They just want to hear what they want to hear. The right-wing, left-wing, and libertarians alike preach to the faithful. Democracy cannot succeed when there is no debate.
Americans need to understand that many interests are using the "war on terror" to achieve their agendas. The Federalist Society is using the "war on terror" to achieve its agenda of concentrating power in the executive and packing the Supreme Court to this effect.
The neocons are using the war to achieve their agenda of Israeli hegemony in the Middle East. Police agencies are using the war to remove constraints on their powers and to make themselves less accountable.
Republicans are using the war to achieve one-party rule--theirs.
The Bush administration is using the war to avoid accountability and evade constraints on executive powers.
Arms industries, or what President Eisenhower called the "military-industrial complex," are using the war to fatten profits.
Terrorism experts are using the war to gain visibility.
Security firms are using it to gain customers. Readers can add to this list at will. The lack of debate gives carte blanche to these agendas.
One certainty prevails. Bush is committing America to a path of violence and coercion, and he is getting away with it.
Paul Craig Roberts was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan administration. He was Associate Editor of the Wall Street Journal editorial page and Contributing Editor of National Review. He is coauthor of The Tyranny of Good Intentions.He can be reached at: paulcraigroberts@yahoo.com
US Hypocrisy Reaches All Time High
by Paul Craig Roberts
DIGG THIS
One of the lessons of the Nuremburg War Crimes Trials of Germans after Germany’s defeat in WW II was that obeying orders is no excuse for war crimes. US prosecutors took the position that the German military should have refused to obey Hitler’s orders.
Chief US prosecutor Robert Jackson established that military aggression was a war crime.
US Army Lieutenant Ehren Watada took the Nuremburg lesson to heart. He refused to deploy to Iraq on the solid grounds that the war is illegal, which it is under the Nuremburg standard, and that he cannot order troops under his command to commit illegal actions.
Watada is correct. If the US general staff had the integrity of Lt. Watada, America and Iraq would have been spared the pointless and bloody conflict. Bush was able to illegally initiate the conflict, because the American military behaved exactly as the German military and followed the orders of a criminal commander-in-chief. Watada must be court-martialed in order to protect Bush and his obedient commanders from war crimes charges.
By prosecuting Lt. Watada, the US military has demeaned the Nuremburg trials and demoted them to merely the revenge of the victorious. Watada’s prosecution demolishes the illusion that the Nuremburg trials established a civilized principle of international law. All it did was to reaffirm that might is right. Germany’s ideology of domination was a war crime, but America’s ideology of domination is not.
January 3, 2007
Paul Craig Roberts [send him mail] wrote the Kemp-Roth bill and was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan administration. He was Associate Editor of the Wall Street Journal editorial page and Contributing Editor of National Review. He is author or coauthor of eight books, including The Supply-Side Revolution (Harvard University Press). He has held numerous academic appointments, including the William E. Simon Chair in Political Economy, Center for Strategic and International Studies, Georgetown University and Senior Research Fellow, Hoover Institution, Stanford University. He has contributed to numerous scholar journals and testified before Congress on 30 occasions. He has been awarded the U.S. Treasury's Meritorious Service Award and the French Legion of Honor. He was a reviewer for the Journal of Political Economy under editor Robert Mundell. He is the co-author of The Tyranny of Good Intentions. He is also coauthor with Karen Araujo of Chile: Dos Visiones – La Era Allende-Pinochet (Santiago: Universidad Andres Bello, 2000).
Copyright © 2007 Creators Syndicate
http://antiwar.com/roberts/
Furthermore, experts like Elizabeth Holtzman, Dave Lindorff, Barbara Olshansky, and Elizabeth de la Vega contend that impeachment for impeachable offenses is legally obligatory on Pelosi and company (see former federal prosecutor de la Vega’s plausible hypothetical indictment of Bush in “Tomgram: United States v. George W. Bush et al.,” Working for Change.com, December 1, 2006).
One certainty prevails. Bush is committing America to a path of violence and coercion, and he is getting away with it.
Paul Craig Roberts was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan administration. He was Associate Editor of the Wall Street Journal editorial page and Contributing Editor of National Review. He is coauthor of The Tyranny of Good Intentions.He can be reached at: paulcraigroberts@yahoo.com
US Hypocrisy Reaches All Time High
by Paul Craig Roberts
DIGG THIS
One of the lessons of the Nuremburg War Crimes Trials of Germans after Germany’s defeat in WW II was that obeying orders is no excuse for war crimes. US prosecutors took the position that the German military should have refused to obey Hitler’s orders.
Chief US prosecutor Robert Jackson established that military aggression was a war crime.
US Army Lieutenant Ehren Watada took the Nuremburg lesson to heart. He refused to deploy to Iraq on the solid grounds that the war is illegal, which it is under the Nuremburg standard, and that he cannot order troops under his command to commit illegal actions.
Watada is correct. If the US general staff had the integrity of Lt. Watada, America and Iraq would have been spared the pointless and bloody conflict. Bush was able to illegally initiate the conflict, because the American military behaved exactly as the German military and followed the orders of a criminal commander-in-chief. Watada must be court-martialed in order to protect Bush and his obedient commanders from war crimes charges.
By prosecuting Lt. Watada, the US military has demeaned the Nuremburg trials and demoted them to merely the revenge of the victorious. Watada’s prosecution demolishes the illusion that the Nuremburg trials established a civilized principle of international law. All it did was to reaffirm that might is right. Germany’s ideology of domination was a war crime, but America’s ideology of domination is not.
January 3, 2007
Paul Craig Roberts [send him mail] wrote the Kemp-Roth bill and was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan administration. He was Associate Editor of the Wall Street Journal editorial page and Contributing Editor of National Review. He is author or coauthor of eight books, including The Supply-Side Revolution (Harvard University Press). He has held numerous academic appointments, including the William E. Simon Chair in Political Economy, Center for Strategic and International Studies, Georgetown University and Senior Research Fellow, Hoover Institution, Stanford University. He has contributed to numerous scholar journals and testified before Congress on 30 occasions. He has been awarded the U.S. Treasury's Meritorious Service Award and the French Legion of Honor. He was a reviewer for the Journal of Political Economy under editor Robert Mundell. He is the co-author of The Tyranny of Good Intentions. He is also coauthor with Karen Araujo of Chile: Dos Visiones – La Era Allende-Pinochet (Santiago: Universidad Andres Bello, 2000).
Copyright © 2007 Creators Syndicate
http://antiwar.com/roberts/
Furthermore, experts like Elizabeth Holtzman, Dave Lindorff, Barbara Olshansky, and Elizabeth de la Vega contend that impeachment for impeachable offenses is legally obligatory on Pelosi and company (see former federal prosecutor de la Vega’s plausible hypothetical indictment of Bush in “Tomgram: United States v. George W. Bush et al.,” Working for Change.com, December 1, 2006).
The Democrats seem graciously willing and even eager to forget that the Bush administration’s effectiveness was based on partisanship without limit and that in the Clinton years the Republicans were prepared to sabotage government functions in order to weaken and discredit a Democratic president.
One reason beyond their disunity that causes the Democrats to fight so weakly is their treatment by the media. We now have a very powerful right-wing media that runs interference for the Republican Party in a hugely unfair and unbalanced way, which has cowed the “liberal media,” causing them to work hard to disprove their alleged liberal bias by assailing the Democrats and showing their patriotic ardor.
One reason beyond their disunity that causes the Democrats to fight so weakly is their treatment by the media. We now have a very powerful right-wing media that runs interference for the Republican Party in a hugely unfair and unbalanced way, which has cowed the “liberal media,” causing them to work hard to disprove their alleged liberal bias by assailing the Democrats and showing their patriotic ardor.
Thus the liberal media cooperated fully in the campaigns of denigration that sought Clinton’s impeachment for a lie without political significance, but none of them have called for Bush’s impeachment for serial lies of huge political importance. This contrast in itself is strong evidence of severe institutionalized media bias.
The media have also regularly peddled and failed to confront the charge that the Democrats are weak on “national security” and Democratic deficits and spending have aroused them much more than Republican “borrow and spend” excesses.
The media have also regularly peddled and failed to confront the charge that the Democrats are weak on “national security” and Democratic deficits and spending have aroused them much more than Republican “borrow and spend” excesses.
The Democrats are under constant pressure to counter their alleged spending excesses and “national security” caution, whereas the Republicans have been able to get away with larger and more corruption-ridden spending excesses and foreign policy actions that have been immensely costly while actually diminishing national security.
Nichols, FAIR, and others have pointed out how quickly the mainstream media have rushed to claim that the new Democratic legislators are conservatives and not likely to rock the political boat toward populism and cutting-and-running. The media have also been very sensitive to aggressive Democratic statements that display “partisanship.”
Nichols, FAIR, and others have pointed out how quickly the mainstream media have rushed to claim that the new Democratic legislators are conservatives and not likely to rock the political boat toward populism and cutting-and-running. The media have also been very sensitive to aggressive Democratic statements that display “partisanship.”
As Molly Ivins says, “So after 12 years of tolerating lying, cheating and corruption, the press is prepared to lecture Democrats on how to behave with bipartisan manners.”
However, one thing the media (and John Nichols as well) fail to point out is that if many of the newly-elected Democrats are pretty conservative—several dozen of them were carefully selected by New Democrat (and former Israeli warrior) Illinois congressperson Rahm Emanuel, chair of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee—they will not be truly representing the constituency that put them into office, a constituency once again denied a progressive option.
The Democratic Party is capitalizing on a rejection of Bush and policies that Blue Dogs and New Democrats have tended to support, and their success in keeping out real progressives will help prevent any major attacks on Bush, his constitution-busting, his foreign policies, and neoliberalism.
These political constraints on the Democrats flow in large measure from the fact that the Republicans serve the business community more undeviatingly than the Democrats, are more trusted by business, and get more financial support from them and kinder treatment by the corporate media.
These political constraints on the Democrats flow in large measure from the fact that the Republicans serve the business community more undeviatingly than the Democrats, are more trusted by business, and get more financial support from them and kinder treatment by the corporate media.
The Democrats have to struggle harder to prove their business-supportive credentials, including their support for “defense” and “national security.” This, and the related media bias, weakens the Democrats’ capacity for service in the general public interest and even for rational behavior.
As regards Iraq, the Democrats are now hamstrung by the threat of political costs in failure to “support our troops” or responsibility for “losing.”
Extrication has political risks in both Iraq and the United States and the Democrats don’t like risk-taking, especially in a media environment in which a Democratic war hero can be trashed while Republican war evaders (“I had other priorities”) and deserters can be essentially free of criticism.
So the widespread public call for extrication will not see the Democrats calling for a speedy withdrawal or even a definite timetable for withdrawal. Pelosi’s attempt to get John Murtha appointed House speaker, if successful, would have placed in a strong power position one of the few Democrats committed to an early and rapid withdrawal.
So the widespread public call for extrication will not see the Democrats calling for a speedy withdrawal or even a definite timetable for withdrawal. Pelosi’s attempt to get John Murtha appointed House speaker, if successful, would have placed in a strong power position one of the few Democrats committed to an early and rapid withdrawal.
His rejection was a defeat for the possibility of a Bush-contesting Iraq stance on the part of the Democrats. (The winner of that struggle, Rep. Steny Hoyer, ranks number one in Public Citizen’s ratings of representatives “most dependent on special interest money to finance campaigns.” Admittedly, Murtha also ranks high in receipt of special interest money.)
The Democrats are also not likely to use their theoretical control over the military budget to force a rapid withdrawal. Some of them probably favor an escalation in one more “last push” to establish military control and “stability,” using this as an alleged response to the demand for change.
The Democrats are also not likely to use their theoretical control over the military budget to force a rapid withdrawal. Some of them probably favor an escalation in one more “last push” to establish military control and “stability,” using this as an alleged response to the demand for change.
One of Harry Reid’s earliest post-election statements was a promise to boost the military budget by $75 billion “to try to get the Army’s diminished units back into combat shape” (Jonathan Weisman, “Reid Pledges To Press Bush On Iraq Policy,” Washington Post, November 15, 2006). The Pentagon is reportedly preparing a larger emergency budget request of $127-150 billion that will supposedly put the military establishment into conflict with the Democrats and test the Democrats’ ability to rein in military spending (see Julian Barnes and Peter Spiegel, “Controversy Over Pentagon’s War-Spending Plans,” Los Angeles Times, November 29, 2006). On the other hand, it may be a deliberately inflated request designed to give the Democrats room to make cuts without impinging on Pentagon plans, a tactic used often in the past.
Another major constraint on the Democrats is their close ties to the pro-Israel Lobby and financial dependence on Lobby-related campaign contributions, the latter compensating in part for the business community’s pro-Republican bias.
Another major constraint on the Democrats is their close ties to the pro-Israel Lobby and financial dependence on Lobby-related campaign contributions, the latter compensating in part for the business community’s pro-Republican bias.
We are talking about 40 percent or more of the Democrats’ campaign budget, large enough, especially when combined with the aggressiveness of the Lobby, to make any systematic criticism of Israeli policy, no matter how egregious, out of the question. Hillary Clinton and Pelosi have been notorious for Israel-protective apologetics and the new chair of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs, Tom Lantos, is a virtual agent of the Israeli state.
This is likely to constrain Democratic policy not only on doing anything about Israeli ethnic cleansing and semi-genocidal attacks on Gaza, but also in making difficult any constructive actions by the Democrats on Iran, Syria, Lebanon, and Iraq, where Lantos, Pelosi, and company are likely to support or at minimum fail to oppose Israel’s hardline and militaristic policies (see “AIPAC Eats New Congress Critters for Lunch,” Signs of the Times, November 13, 2006; also Pelosi’s appalling remarks before AIPAC on May 24, 2005, Mark Gaffney, “Nancy Pelosi Gives a Pep Talk to AIPAC,” with a copy included on Common Dreams.org, May 27, 2006).
In short, with the Democratic Party’s electoral triumph we may expect a small increment in the minimum wage, some other modest economic policy actions that serve middle America and the poor, and a brake on the Bush program of service to a tiny elite and regressive environmental policy.
In short, with the Democratic Party’s electoral triumph we may expect a small increment in the minimum wage, some other modest economic policy actions that serve middle America and the poor, and a brake on the Bush program of service to a tiny elite and regressive environmental policy.
The Bush takedown of the Constitution will probably be halted, but reversals of the serious encroachments via the PATRIOT and Military Commissions Acts will face the veto, plus traditional Blue Dog and New Democrat defections.
Impeachment is already off the table and investigations that will take place may be useful, but may be compromised by the Democrats’ bipartisanship proclivities. AND HERE IS WHERE WE ARE PREPARED TO ATTACK!!
The Democrats may exercise a modest drag on the military budget, but the party has long been supportive of a militarized state and party funding, pressures to prove their “national security” credentials, and fear of charges of failing to support our troops are likely to sharply constrain Democratic initiatives here and as regards Iraq.
The Democrats may exercise a modest drag on the military budget, but the party has long been supportive of a militarized state and party funding, pressures to prove their “national security” credentials, and fear of charges of failing to support our troops are likely to sharply constrain Democratic initiatives here and as regards Iraq.
They are likely to follow along with something like the weak, conditional, slow withdrawal proposals of the Bush appointed “bipartisan” Iraq Study Group. As regards Israel and Palestine, the Democrats have been virtually captured by the Lobby and we can expect nothing from them in this crucial area where U.S.-Israeli policy feeds hostility to this country as well as Israel.
Given Israel’s eagerness to get the United States to attack Iran, here again the Democrats are likely to offer nothing constructive and will provide little brake if Bush-Cheney decide that another war might serve God’s and the Bush administration’s interests. This country and the world still desperately need a party in the United States that will support non-violent and non-imperialistic alternative policies, something that the victorious Democrats do not provide.
Dear Ed.,
Share Your Ideas and Feedback
My mission as the new Chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) is to build on the momentum for change from the last election. To maintain that momentum, we must enact our agenda for change, hold the Bush Administration accountable for its failures in Iraq and at home, and reform the way Congress operates.
Dear Ed.,
Share Your Ideas and Feedback
My mission as the new Chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) is to build on the momentum for change from the last election. To maintain that momentum, we must enact our agenda for change, hold the Bush Administration accountable for its failures in Iraq and at home, and reform the way Congress operates.
I am confident that we will move forward on all these fronts. To accomplish our mission, we must also begin immediately to ensure that our newly elected members are in a strong position for their re-election efforts. Many of them come from historically Republican districts and have already been targeted by the Republican Party. As we protect these new members of Congress, we must also continue our aggressive candidate recruitment efforts. We will remain on offense and work to field another strong group of candidates to challenge Republican incumbents. We must do all this at a time when much attention and resources will be focused on the upcoming presidential election.
We must not allow that election to divert our attention from the essential goal of preserving and expanding our majority in Congress. We must strengthen our ability to chart a positive new direction for America. Share Your Ideas and Feedback. Our success during the 2006 election was largely the result of the energy, activism and resources generated by the members of the DCCC's grassroots community. We could not have done it without your help and support. Thank you!
We need your help again in order to accomplish our mission in 2008. That is why, as we embark on the next election cycle together, I want to get your feedback and ideas. The DCCC was more successful in 2006 than ever before, but there are always ways to improve. Before Speaker-Elect Nancy Pelosi and our Democratic leadership team begins making the pivotal long-term decisions about our strategy during the 2008 election cycle, we want your input. Please complete this report card on the DCCC's performance and interactions with the DCCC Community so we can all be on the same page.
Share Your Ideas and Feedback. I thank Speaker-Elect Nancy Pelosi for the opportunity to serve as Chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee.
I also thank Rahm Emanuel for his very successful leadership at the helm of the DCCC during the last election cycle. Most of all, I thank you and those who worked with all of us to make our victory possible. Let's do it again in 2008! I look forward to working with you. Sincerely, Chris Van Hollen Chairman, Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee
Dear Ed.,I'm going into the New Year more hopeful than I've felt in a long time – and I'm writing to say thank you for giving me hope.
Thank you for supporting People For the American Way's work to educate and energize progressive voters.
Thank you for helping People For the American Way stand up for a society grounded in respect for privacy, for individual freedom and opportunity, and for the legal protections granted in our precious Constitution.
The last several years have often made it hard to be hopeful about our future. We have watched politicians get elected by running brutally divisive campaigns. We have watched a president returned to office in spite of his clear record of contempt for the Constitution. And we have watched this administration put policy-making powers and taxpayer dollars into the hands of Religious Right activists with agendas that threaten our values and our religious liberty.
But I believe this year marked a historic turning point.
And I believe that members and supporters of People For the American Way – people like you – helped us make a historic difference in our 25th year as an organization.
Now it's time to look forward together, with hope, yes, but also with determination.
We must move forward boldly to encourage real accountability and a Congress willing to engage in effective oversight of the executive branch – a constitutional duty that was grossly neglected during the past six years of one-party rule in Washington, D.C.
We must act now to make sure that the national elections in 2008 are decided by voters, not by officials who restrict access to the voting booth or by unaccountable and unverifiable voting machines.
And we must build on the grassroots strength that we helped build this year – to deepen and broaden the base of progressive activists who can make a difference in 2007 and 2008.
I hope that you share my pride in the work that People For the American Way has done with your help – and that you share my commitment to building an even stronger and more effective People For the American Way over the next two years.
As you consider all that we have accomplished together this year, and the work that remains to be done, I encourage you to consider a year-end gift to People For the American Way.
My support for People For the American Way is one of the concrete ways I express my gratitude for the blessings of liberty – and for the opportunity to work with likeminded people to extend those blessings to all Americans.
Best wishes to you and your loved ones in the coming year.
Norman Lear, Co-founderPeople For the American Way
Dear Ed.,I'm going into the New Year more hopeful than I've felt in a long time – and I'm writing to say thank you for giving me hope.
Thank you for supporting People For the American Way's work to educate and energize progressive voters.
Thank you for helping People For the American Way stand up for a society grounded in respect for privacy, for individual freedom and opportunity, and for the legal protections granted in our precious Constitution.
The last several years have often made it hard to be hopeful about our future. We have watched politicians get elected by running brutally divisive campaigns. We have watched a president returned to office in spite of his clear record of contempt for the Constitution. And we have watched this administration put policy-making powers and taxpayer dollars into the hands of Religious Right activists with agendas that threaten our values and our religious liberty.
But I believe this year marked a historic turning point.
And I believe that members and supporters of People For the American Way – people like you – helped us make a historic difference in our 25th year as an organization.
Now it's time to look forward together, with hope, yes, but also with determination.
We must move forward boldly to encourage real accountability and a Congress willing to engage in effective oversight of the executive branch – a constitutional duty that was grossly neglected during the past six years of one-party rule in Washington, D.C.
We must act now to make sure that the national elections in 2008 are decided by voters, not by officials who restrict access to the voting booth or by unaccountable and unverifiable voting machines.
And we must build on the grassroots strength that we helped build this year – to deepen and broaden the base of progressive activists who can make a difference in 2007 and 2008.
I hope that you share my pride in the work that People For the American Way has done with your help – and that you share my commitment to building an even stronger and more effective People For the American Way over the next two years.
As you consider all that we have accomplished together this year, and the work that remains to be done, I encourage you to consider a year-end gift to People For the American Way.
My support for People For the American Way is one of the concrete ways I express my gratitude for the blessings of liberty – and for the opportunity to work with likeminded people to extend those blessings to all Americans.
Best wishes to you and your loved ones in the coming year.
Norman Lear, Co-founderPeople For the American Way
No comments:
Post a Comment