A day after the election in 2004, Bush attempted to con some people into believing that he was
uniter. Yet two months into his second term, Bush and the RW, with
Bill Frist leading the theatrics, walked the GOP right over a cliff during the
Terri Schiavo fiasco.
The incident epitomizes the first seven of Bush’s eight-year divisive, despicable and destructive reign. The outrageous Republican Party has come to the defense of Bush at all cost, even at the expense of dragging America down. Many are willing to sell their souls in Bush's defense as
McCain, of all people, did when he cave on torture just to let Bush have his way with a
signing statement.
Yesterday a New York Times
article revealed Bush’s secret attempts to go even further in denying basic human rights. While it’s impossible to make a bigger liar out of George "
This government does not torture" Bush, here goes:
Friday, October 05, 2007
David Luban
Now we know about the existence of
two hitherto-unknown Office of Legal Counsel memos on torture and cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment (CID for short) – what
Jack has called Torture Memos 2.0 and 3.0. Reportedly, number 2.0 approves specific harsh techniques used by th e CIA, while 3.0 finds that no technique used by the government is CID. (If it was, the Detainee Treatment Act would prohibit it.)
My subject here is Torture Memo 3.0, and my question is whether we should be surprised. The answer is no, because the Justice Department already told us that no interrogation tactic can possibly be cruel, inhuman, and degrading. In some sense, the only surprise is that Congress now acts surprised. Why the outrage now? DoJ told them its position more than two years ago, in
a letter to three Democratic Senators.
<...>
Justice loopholed this definition of CID in two ways. First, it seized on the fact that the Court has held that the Fifth and Eighth Amendments apply only within U.S. territory. Ergo, nothing outside U.S. territory can possibly count as CID. This interpretation drew protests from Sofaer, because it turns the point of the Senate’s reservation upside down. The McCain Amendment plugged this loophole by banning CID regardless of geographical location.
But that still leaves the second loophole untouched. In the wake of Gonzales’s confirmation-hearing testimony that sketched out this territorial argument,
three Democratic senators wrote to John Ashcroft, requesting all legal opinions on the subject within three days, for purposes of the confirmation debate. Justice ignored the request, but four months later Assistant AG William Moschella finally responded. He refused to turn over any legal opinions, but he did sketch out the reasoning. Here’s the loophole his letter describes:
With respect to treatment of detainees by the United States Government…the pertinent Amendment is the Fifth Amendment. As relevant here, that Amendment protects against treatment that, in the words of the Supreme Court, “shocks the conscience,” such as (again in the words of the Court) “only the most egregious conduct,” such as “conduct intended to injure in some way unjustifiable by any government interest.” County of Sacramento v. Lewis, 523 U.S. 833, 846, 849 (1998).
That’s the loophole. The letter strongly suggests identifying conduct that shocks the conscience with conduct “unjustifiable by any government interest.” Obviously, interrogation of detainees is justifiable by a government interest. If so, it doesn’t shock the conscience, doesn’t violate the Fifth Amendment, and therefore doesn’t count as cruel, inhuman or degrading.
It’s no wonder that
Europeans see the U.S. as the biggest world threat.
Of course, U.S. for the past seven years has meant Bush, who is obviously clueless to that
fact:
“At the nadir of his presidency, George W. Bush is looking for answers.” Unbeknownst “even to many on is staff,” Bush has summoned “leading authors, historians, philosophers and theologians to the White House” to discuss questions like, “Why does the rest of the world seem to hate America?
Or is it just me they hate?”
George, don’t worry yourself, with a year left in office your legacy is
sealed – 4,000 dead U.S. troops, possibly a million dead Iraqis and torture:
Between this and Jane Mayer's explosive article in August about the CIA black sites, I am increasingly confident that when the history of the Bush Administration is written, this systematic violation of statutory and treaty-based law concerning fundamental war crimes and other horrific offenses will be seen as the blackest mark in our nation's recent history -- not only because of what was done, but because the programs were routinely sanctioned, on an ongoing basis, by numerous esteemed professionals -- lawyers, doctors, psychologists and government officers -- without whose approval such a systematized torture regime could not be sustained.
None of this matters to the depraved
Republicans and their supporters. Why? You could say that they believe American torture is “phony,” torture:
Article neglects to mention we are fighting an enemy that considers powerdrills into kneecaps and videotaped beheading of captives business as usual. That in fact, we have yet to face an enemy in the modern era that observes anything approaching the standards we do. Germany, Japan, North Korea, North Vietnam, Iran, Iraq. Disorientation, isolation, beatings, starvation, summary executions, torture … of the bone-breaking, organ-smashing, electrocuting, bloody-drawing variety.
linkThe Republicans preach compassion, but practice
hypocrisy. Since their words never match their deeds, the result is always suffering. Bush’s
veto of S-CHIP is a perfect example. Jim Wallis relays
this story about a meeting with Bush during another period when Bush was passing himself off as a uniter, this time the day after the 2000 election:
Wednesday, Oct. 03, 2007 By JIM WALLIS
<...>
When the discussion officially ended, Bush moved around the room, talking with us individually or in small groups for another hour. I could see that his staff was anxious to whisk him away (cabinet appointments were being made that week and there were key departments yet to fill). Yet he lingered and continued to ask questions. At one point, he turned to me and said, with what I could only read as complete sincerity, "Jim, I don't understand poor people. I've never lived with poor people or been around poor people much. I don't understand what they think and feel about a lot of things. I'm just a white Republican guy who doesn't get it. How do I get it?"
<...>
But that was a long time ago. We don't hear much about that office or initiative anymore. Most of my friends have long left. I don't hear about meetings now. The phrase "compassionate conservatism" rarely passes the lips of anyone at the White House these days.
And now, the President has vetoed a bipartisan measure to expand health insurance for low-income children. Most of his expressed objections to the bill have been vigorously refuted by Republican Senators who helped craft the legislation. Members of his own party have vowed to lobby their colleagues in an effort to override the veto. During his first presidential campaign, Bush chided conservative House Republicans for spending cuts accomplished on the backs of the poor. Now congressional Republicans are chiding him.
What happened to this president? The money needed for expanding health care to poor children in America is far less than the money that has been lost and wasted on corruption in Iraq. How have the priorities strayed so far from those children, whom he once agreed were so central to the soul of the nation? What do they need to do to get the President's attention again?
The faithful — of all creeds and political affiliations — barraged the White House last week, imploring the President to reconsider his veto threat. Our efforts did not bear fruit. But I wonder if, before he put his veto stamp on that legislation, the President thought back to that little meeting in a Baptist Sunday school classroom, not far from where he grew up. I wonder if he remembered that day, what we talked about, what was in his heart, and how much hope there was in the room. If he knows his Bible, the President should remember that Jesus said to suffer the little children. This, however, isn't exactly what he meant.
moreAh,
Mother Bush must be proud!
As Paul Krugman points out, most conservatives
aren’t bothered by the fact that almost nine million children in America lack health insurance.
Similary, they could careless about
improving education for all children.
Katrina was met with the same preach compassion, practice hypocrisy approach.
There were endless
promises, followed by stories about how the disaster affected
Bush; checks written, but never
disbursed; and
flags:
One thing Bush likes to do in the Gulf Coast is hand out American flags to families rebuilding their houses. Long before he shows up, Bush’s advance team scouts the non-hostile property owners in a neighborhood, and later, the president drops by and gives the family a flag. The White House thinks this makes for good pictures — and maybe it did, a month after the storm. But a year and half later, with the region still a mess and so many people displaced, it seems a little tone-deaf to be handing out flags — politically, it does invite comparisons to what Bush isn’t doing in the region.
He's still screening audiences!
In Republican's bizarre world
Scooter Libby is a fallen soldier and the real troops fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan who believe Bush’s are phony. Anyone who dares to criticize them for such depraved labels will be subjected to responses that either avoid the facts or pile on the attacks, often by Republicans in positions of power, including members of Congress and corporate executives. A few years ago the Dixie Chicks criticized Bush and the Republican Party unleashed its feigned outrage machine!
What the Dixie Chicks
said:
"Just so you know," Texas native Maines said on stage, "we're ashamed that the president of the United States is from Texas."
Clear Channel’s
response:
"Out of respect for our troops, our city and our listeners, (we) have taken the Dixie Chicks off our playlists," said Gail Austin, Clear Channel's director of programming for the two Jacksonville stations.
Note that the station director conflates criticism of Bush with respect for the troops.
Fast forward to September 2007, Rush Limbaugh refers to troops who criticize Bush’s failed Iraq policy as “
phony,” and Clear Channel’s hypocrisy kicks in.
What Rush
said.
CALLER 1: Well, I am a Republican, and I've listened to you for a long time, and you're right on a lot of things, but I do believe that we should pull out of Iraq. I don't think it's winnable. And I'm not a Democrat, but I just -- sometimes you've got to cut the losses.
<...>
LIMBAUGH: Mike, you can't possibly be a Republican.
CALLER 1: I am.
LIMBAUGH: You are -- you are --
CALLER 1: I am definitely a Republican.
LIMBAUGH: You can't be a Republican. You are --
CALLER 1: Oh, I am definitely a Republican.
LIMBAUGH: You are tarnishing the reputation, 'cause you sound just like a Democrat.
<...>
LIMBAUGH: "Save the -- keep the troops safe" or whatever. I -- it's not possible, intellectually, to follow these people.
CALLER 2: No, it's not, and what's really funny is, they never talk to real soldiers. They like to pull these soldiers that come up out of the blue and talk to the media.
LIMBAUGH: The phony soldiers.
CALLER 2: The phony soldiers. If you talk to a real soldier, they are proud to serve. They want to be over in Iraq. They understand their sacrifice, and they're willing to sacrifice for their country.
Democrats in Congress call on Clear Channel to denounce Limbaugh’s comments. Limbaugh escalates his attacks, this time comparing a purple heart recipient to a Suicide Bomber.
What Limbaugh
said:
LIMBAUGH: VoteVets.org has -- they describe themselves as an organization comprised of veterans of the Iraq and Afghanistan campaigns who oppose current policy in Iraq. They've put together a TV ad that takes aim at me. This ad's going to run on Fox News, on CNN, it's going to run on WMAL radio in Washington, $60,000 ad buy that's going to run, I think, on our local West Palm Beach station down here. And there's a man identified as Brian McCoff -- McGough -- it's M-C-G-O-U-G-H, I'm not sure how he pronounces it, McGo, McGuff -- I haven't watched the ad.
He discusses his service in Iraq, the wounds he suffered there, and he says to me in this ad, "Until you have the guts to call me a 'phony soldier' to my face, stop telling lies about my service." You know, this is such a blatant use of a valiant combat veteran, lying to him about what I said, then strapping those lies to his belt, sending him out via the media in a TV ad to walk into as many people as he can walk into.
This man will always be a hero to this country with everyone. Whoever pumped him full of these lies about what I said and embarrassed him with this ad has betrayed him. They're not hurting me, they're betraying this soldier. Now, unless he actually believes what he's saying, in which case it's just so unfortunate and sad when the truth of what I said is right out there to be learned.]
McGouugh's
response:
I can assure you that I am no suicide bomber and that I can think for myself. <…>
Rush, your phony soldier comments pissed me off. The audacity of someone like you who never had the courage to stand and fight for what you believe in makes my head spin. That is what made me stand up and state my convictions in front of a camera. I wanted to point out that you are wrong. I am not a phony soldier. <…>
In the commercial I just taped, I told you unless you had the guts to say something to my face, stop telling lies about my service. Well you haven’t had the guts to say it to my face, but I am waiting and the offer
is still on the table.
Clear Channel
responds to the Democrats’ letter:
"Given Mr. Limbaugh's history of support for our soldiers, it would be unfair for me to assume his statements were intended to personally indict combat soldiers simply because they didn't share his own beliefs regarding the war in Iraq."
Couldn't that standard have been applied when John Kerry, Vietnam Veteran and decorated War Hero, made a comment directed at Bush, but distorted by the RW? As
irony would have it:
Troops denied education benefits by 1 day?. Way to support the troops!
OK, maybe the executives are completely oblivious to the things Limbaugh says on his show. Then again
maybe not.
Clear Channel’s priorities are, well, clear: protect Bush.
A reminder to the Republicans from
John Kerry:
That is why, with actions not words, on the floor of the Senate last week, we reminded Rush Limbaugh and all those who think patriotism belongs to one political party, that just saying you support the troops doesn’t make it so. You don’t support the troops if you force their families to take up a collection to buy body armor for a son or daughter in the service, you don’t support the troops if you deny veterans health care.
No, you support the troops by doing what it took a Democratic Senate to do in the last months and just last week: pass my amendment to fund the vet centers that help returning soldiers heal PTSD and the hidden wounds of war, and make sure that for a generation of veterans returning home with eye injuries, their government will guarantee they get treated. That’s how you keep faith with those who wear the uniform of our country.
Remember when Limbaugh went to Afghanistan courtesy
USAID?
At the time, the trip came up during a
daily press briefing at the State Department:
QUESTION: May I ask the other one? Is -- are Rush Limbaugh and Mary Matalin traveling to Afghanistan with USAID Administrator Andrew Natsios? And if they are, are they paying for their trip, as journalists normally do, or is the U.S. Government in any way paying for their transport or lodging?
MR. BOUCHER: I'll ask you to check with AID on specifically who might be going on this journey, but Andrew Natsios, the Administrator, is leaving f
or Afghanistan in the latter part of February. He is going to be visiting sites throughout the country to see the process of reconstruction. Details of the travel are still being worked out.
As you all know, the Secretary, other U.S. government officials, Administrator Natsios, do from time to time allow journalists to accompany them on their trip. We do think it's an important way of making the American people aware of what's going on. There's a lot of things to look at in terms of the reconstruction program in Afghanistan, building roads, water supplies, health care centers, all that sort of thing, and taking journalists along on this trip is certainly one way of letting the American people know about that.
As to specifically which journalists are going and the exact costs and how they're borne, of the trip, have to get AID to tell you that when it's at the time.
QUESTION: Do they not know -- I mean, I'm wondering why you can't answer that, only because -- I mean, AID, I thought, was a wholly-owned subsidiary of the State Department since the -- isn't that right -- since the
MR. BOUCHER: They're a wholly-owned partner. (Laughter.)
QUESTION: But they're wholly owned, so if they're wholly owned then you're the spokesman for the --
MR. BOUCHER: They do have a separate press operation that gets into more detail on their things than I do, and I'll let them do that in this case.
QUESTION: And one other question. Isn't it generally the case that journalists who travel are not sort of a -- are not, as it were, commentators, but are sort of reporters; isn't that right? Or in the past, has the Secretary -- have secretaries taken along editorial writers or columnists, for example?
MR. BOUCHER: There have been some. I mean, frankly, it depends on demand, in some cases. We look at the people who want to go, try to take people who want to go. There's no hard and fast rule. We take all sorts of people who are interested.
It appears Boucher got caught in lie. Typical Republican!
Media Matters covered Rush’s trip, again paid for by the State Department:
Limbaugh brought his Democrat-bashing to U.S. troops in Afghanistan. Here is a report from Limbaugh’s
site:
There's still a big offensive that's thought to take place -- well "big," I mean, it won't be as big as it is because the Taliban is in the process of being wiped out but there's still pockets of unrest throughout the country. These Afghani people are tough though. Everybody I've talked to talks about their legendary fighting for what they believe in, and they're just physically rigorously tough people, so it's been an eye-opening experience. I would have never known any of this had I not come here -- and I don't want to come off as a proselytizer for this. I actually just am sharing with you the things I've seen and learned and the thoughts I have. Just so you understand, tempered with some realism. During dinner tonight -- we had our final going-away dinner -- and they asked me is there anything you didn't get to do and I said, "Yeah, there's one thing." I said, "Driving around this city and driving around this country, I've seen the average Afghanis that I've not been able to meet. I've seen the people pushing the push carts. I've seen the people with their meat carcasses hanging in their dumpy little shacks trying to sell them. I've seen just the average Afghan citizen in various parts of the country. I've seen the upscale as well. But the people I've been introduced to all pretty much (audio dropout)." But I'd like to go talk to the average Afghani to find out if what I'm told about him is actually true.
Does the average Afghani really believe in what's going on, was he really excited to vote, was he really excited to register to vote, is this something that really mattered, are they even paying attention? You know 40% of America doesn't pay attention to politics, doesn't care. Fortunately enough Americans do that we get a representative result with each election.
Haven’t see much written, not a peep out of Rush, about Afghanistan, where Bush’s lack of focus h
as resulted in a resurgence of the
Taliban and an
soaring violence.
Typical Republican tactics: brag, criticize, deny and ignore. After more than a year of denouncing a deadline for withdrawing troops from Iraq as dangerous, a group of Republicans, no doubt with reelection in mind, offered just such a
timetable, albeit a bogus one. Maybe the public will just notice that it’s a timetable and not read the specifics.
A few days later, Sen. Lindsey Graham offered his version of a
deadline.
Never mind that a big part of their propaganda has been that if the troops are withdraws, the region will collapse and terrorism will spread around the world.
Similarly with North Korea, the
Bush admin’s arrogance stalled talks with that country for years. Labeling North Korea as one of the prongs on his Axis of Evil was not a diplomacy starter. When he finally abandoned his hot-air approach and decided to engage in bilateral talks, he proved
John Kerry right.
In 2004, Bush bragged about the impact his
tax cuts would have on the economy:
Still, when arguing for the tax cuts, the Bush administration promised they would create about 300,000 jobs every month, beginning in July 2003 -- most economists doubt last year's numbers will be revised that dramatically.
Today, Bush is bragging about less than
200,000 jobs created over a two-month period.
Then there is U.S. dollar. On September 20, “
http://www.theglobeandmail.com%2Fservlet%2Fstory%2FRTGAM.20070928.wdollarpar0928%2FBNStory%2FrobNews%2Fhome&ord=950232&brand=theglobeandmail&force_login=true">Canadian currency reached parity” with U.S. currency for the first time in 31 years.
Today, the U.S. dollar is worth a little over
98 cents (Canadian)
John Kerry on
Bushonomics:
Ten years ago when the tech bubble burst, the losses were mainly on paper. Now our losses are in homes, health care, pensions, and jobs. A decade ago, investors lost the illusion of pain-free, perpetual super-profits. Today we are ridding ourselves of the Cheney illusion that “deficits don’t matter,” and the Bush illusion that you can borrow, deregulate, devalue and subsidize your way to growth by letting moneyed interests feed at the trough of government favors and borrowed money.
That is Bushonomics: those at the top get the benefit. You and future generations get stuck with the bill.
<…>
Buying your own home has always been the foundation of the American dream. But when more than 2 million Americans — including thousands in Massachusetts — risk losing their homes, for too many the dream of home ownership is becoming a nightmare.
Why is that happening? Because we have a sub-prime mortgage market that’s been abused by lenders’ deceptive practices and abandoned by the federal bank regulators who looked the other way. In the Bush economy, anything goes. But for families in danger of losing their homes, the question “Why?” is less important than: “What now?”
Today families fighting to hold onto their homes also find themselves fighting the federal government. When a bank does the right thing to try to lighten a family’s mortgage burden, the federal government turns around and taxes this assistance as if it were real income. This is just plain wrong. The government should be helping families pick themselves up, not kicking them when they’re already down. That’s why I’m fighting in the Senate to change the law so families don’t have to fight the IRS while they’re fighting to keep their homes.
<…>
44 years ago, a very different kind of president, John F. Kennedy, went to Pueblo Colorado and assured America that a “rising tide would lift all boats.” ... No, we don’t live with the same economy that President Kennedy talked about — as he once said, “the world is very different now.” But the ideal he spoke of must endure. The economy will never be the same as it once was, but America always needs to stay true to America.
Today our economy is living on borrowed money, and on borrowed time, and both will run out soon if we don’t get serious about changing course in Washington.
We must end the assault on America’s middle class and we must begin to make our economy fair again. The great American middle class doesn’t ask for much, but it counts on: leadership that honors work as much as wealth; and leaders who will make economic growth not a spectator sport, but a common endeavor.
Our mission is clear and the cause is just: Health care for all. Energy independence. A tax code that works for working people. Stop making a mockery of the phrase “ownership society.” A fair shake for the workers who ultimately create our wealth. And a society where wealth comes with responsibility, and not just a ticket to power and privilege.
That guy should be president. Sadly, the Republicans have even compromised the integrity of our
voting system.
Since Bush’s selection in 2000, the Republicans have ramped up their efforts to
trample on voters’ rights. As House Democrats finally get around to investigate the 2002 phone jamming "
that tied up get-out-the-vote calls on Election Day,” the GOP plan, to rig the
California election stalled. The initiative was traced back to a
Rudy Giuliani backer and a
supporter of the Swift Boat liars.
That is the Republican Party. The party of
Larry Craig. The party of
Rush Limbaugh and Dick Cheney. The party of
George Bush.
edited to fix link
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
