Curiouser and Curiouser! on george-bush

The Global War on Justice

Sun, 18 Jan 2004 08:21:33 +0000

"A legal black hole". In an extraordinary Supreme Court filing, five military lawyers equate Bush's denial of legal rights to the Guantanamo Bay detainees to King George's oppression of the American colonists. [Salon.com]

This piece adequately sums up my fears about what is happening in the US legal system (and what may come our way too in the near future):

Amicus embraces the principles affirmed in Reid v. Covert: Slight encroachments create new boundaries from which legions of power can seek new territory to capture. It may be that it is the obnoxious thing in its mildest and least repulsive form; but illegitimate and unconstitutional practices get their first footing in that way, namely, by silent approaches and slight deviations from legal modes of procedure ... We should not break faith with this nation's tradition of keeping military power subservient to civilian authority, a tradition which we believe is firmly embodied in the Constitution. The country has remained true to that faith for almost one hundred seventy years. Perhaps no group in the Nation has been truer than military men themselves.

And, further:

Unlike earlier wars, the struggle against terrorism is potentially never-ending. The Constitution cannot countenance an open-ended Presidential power, with no civilian review whatsoever, to try anyone the President deems subject to a military tribunal, whose rules and judges have been selected by the prosecuting authority itself.

Go to code red! Oh, we did that already.

Thu, 22 Jan 2004 12:30:15 +0000

Bush loses his aura of invincibility. In his State of the Union address, the president posed once again as the indomitable wartime leader -- but it didn't play as well this time. [Salon.com]

Sad.

Why it doesn't matter

Tue, 17 Feb 2004 20:14:49 +0000

New Bush records, same old questions. Why did the "outstanding young pilot" stop flying? Why dont the records document his time in Alabama? And what about the missing physical? The 400-page document dump has no answers. [Salon.com]

Until you make it possible for an ordinary person, without oil money or dynstasty backgrounds, to run for president you are never going to have an honest man in the Whitehouse. It's too much of a magnet for the power hungry or the friends of the power hungry. I hold out little hope for Kerry, Edwards, or Dean. They aren't Bush but what are they exactly?

What an interesting race it would be to have a dozen, non party, ordinary, smart, Joe's running. People who don't realise their entire life has been leading to this momement until they're actually there and doing it.

Right now I think America would be better off with a lottery. Just pick someone at random every 4 years. You couldn't do any worse than you are now.

No interest

Sun, 07 Mar 2004 12:20:46 +0000

President Bush: Don't use my husband as your mascot. A 9/11 widow's open letter to Bush about his new ad campaign. [Salon.com]

I'm trying not to post about US politics these days. It's not my country and I'm afraid I come across as whiny, preachy, and repetitive.

Nevertheless what I've seen about the recent Bush 9/11 based campaigning is pretty gross and utterly contemptible. I'm not sure if he's actually wrapped himself in the flag yet but it can only be a matter ot time.

I find it depressing to consider that a large chunk of America is probably going to willingly swallow this horse pill, that they seem to think it's in their best interest to have Bush in charge.

The same argument could be applied here, there, and everywhere. I certainly don't think Blair == Bush, but I can't, in conscience, vote for Blairs Labour party. I'll have to come up with another option.

I'm looking for a movement that asks people to consider what is in their own long term best interests. I feel sure that if more people were to consider this we could begin to make some progress.

"our long national nightmare of peace and prosperity is finally over."

Mon, 08 Mar 2004 08:07:40 +0000

Fulfilled prophecy. I wrote a while back (the Nader letter that penty of people wrote to me about but Eric didn't like) with a link to The Onion's article in 2001 jokingly predicting how George W Bush would function as US president. Just to show how unsettlingly prescient it was, Dan Chak has republished it complete with links to the actual events. Read and be afraid. [via Dave Orchard] [WebMink]

New Bush: Now 20% more loathsome than other brands

Mon, 15 Mar 2004 14:47:40 +0000

Going negative. He's the father of the modern attack ad, and he's behind the Bush campaign's new wave of anti-Kerry spots. Alex Castellanos is known as vicious, irresponsible -- and effective. [Salon.com]

It seems that the words repulsive and Bush are to be forever intertwined for me...

It is not caving in to the bees to stop poking a stick into their hive.

Wed, 17 Mar 2004 10:49:34 +0000

I've just read a very powerful article by Lew Rockwell which is the first article I've read that resonates with how I feel about this whole pre-9/11, post-9/11, Iraq War, American Empire, Madrid, Terrorism mess we've gotten ourselves into.

After the bombing, Spaniards didn't shout: "They hate us because we are good!" or "Spain is Number One!" or otherwise pledge their religious devotion to the consolidated Spanish state. Not at all. Instead, they said: that jerk at the top brought this on, because he sold out the nation to appease the Bush administration. There was no Spanish Patriot Act, no creation of a Department of Homeland Security. Instead, there was a wave of good sense which amounted to the following: let's stop making these people mad by invading and occupying their country.

...

Americans have somehow come to believe that all acts of terrorism must result in a bigger government. As a result, we have just come to accept the idea that the government will get away with ever more violations of our liberties. In the Spanish case, however, the terror act may result in diminishing government power. This is wholly justified, just as bee stings should teach a person not to agitate them without reason. It is not caving in to the bees to stop poking a stick into their hive.

...

Why didn't Americans respond similarly after 9-11? The intellectual elites of both parties and all approved political ideologies agreed to impose a taboo in the days following the attacks on the Twin Towers and the Pentagon. That taboo was against discussing the events outside the vacuum of that one day. We were all supposed to pretend that the United States government was 100% pure and innocent and had never done anything to anyone.

Incredibly, this was a plausible scenario to many Americans, who had no clue that the US was directly responsible for perhaps a million plus deaths of children in Iraq with its sanctions policies (according to the UN but say it's half that for the sake of argument; it makes no difference). Americans are also famously ignorant of Islamic concerns about Infidels With Guns running around in Mecca.

"I don't remember"

Sat, 27 Mar 2004 09:47:10 +0000

Thought provoking piece, from the Future of Freedom Foundation, about the use of "I don't remember" as a way of avoiding the truth (good or bad) and about how it is being used now by members of the Bush administration.

Tax and waste

Tue, 30 Mar 2004 13:05:41 +0100

Florida is a battleground state in the US presidential election this fall. Lots of Bush-Cheney ads on the radio on the drive here from Orlando. They paint Kerry as a taxer. They have an ad with a supposed Bostoner (he makes fun of his own accent) talking about how Kerry likes to tax, tax, tax. Made me think I should move to Florida until November, so I can vote for Kerry in the fall in a place where my vote means something. Bush makes me totally sick. Bush decided to create a huge deficit. Kind of like a tax. [Scripting News]

As I understand it, a very actual tax. Just not till after the election.

As far as I known there are 3 kinds of government borrowing:

Borrowing to cover capital investment
Borrowing to cover day-to-day spending
Borrowing to waste on overseas adventurism

The first kind can be good because the investments hopefully lead to a growth in the economy which leads to higher tax revenues. The other kinds are bad because they do not increase the capacity of the economy. In all cases you have to pay back the principal but also fund the interest charges on what you've borrowed.

So, if you're pissing that borrowed cash away on bombing foreign countries and filling the pockets of your friends in the oil & arms industries... well likely you'll be the kind of person that will find a way to avoid the taxes anyway.

Have a nice day!

Iraq on the Record: The Bush Administrations Public Statements on Iraq

Tue, 30 Mar 2004 13:52:14 +0100

237 misleading statements about the threat posed by Iraq that were made by President Bush, Vice President Cheney, Secretary Rumsfeld, Secretary Powell, and National Security Advisor Rice. These statements were made in 125 separate appearances, consisting of 40 speeches, 26 press conferences and briefings, 53 interviews, 4 written statements, and 2 congressional testimonies. Most of the statements in the database were misleading because they expressed certainty where none existed or failed to acknowledge the doubts of intelligence officials. Ten of the statements were simply false.
Source: Karen Kwiatkowski/LewRockwell.com

You may also want to take a look at the congressional report this is drawn from. A note about the report itself:

This Iraq on the Record database contains statements made by the five officials that were misleading at the time they were made. The database does not include statements that appear in hindsight to be erroneous but were accurate reflections of the views of intelligence officials at the time they were made. The entire database is accessible to members of Congress and the public at this location.

Wish you were here!

Mon, 12 Apr 2004 19:13:11 +0100

The best-rested war president in history? [Salon.com]

And then I listen to the news about American (and presumably British) troops attacking Iraqi towns. About how the marines are disappointed that the new Iraqi police force isn't doing their dirty work for them (quelle surprise, they know they have to live there when the marines, greatfully, bug out).

Oh yes, this is working out just super.

All's well in Iraq. Nothing to see here folks. Move along now.

Wed, 21 Apr 2004 19:45:34 +0100

Tracking the spoils of war

Greenspan tells Congress rates will rise

Fables of the Iraqi reconstruction

At least 3 killed by tornado in Illinois

Nine killed in Saudi car bomb explosions

Suicide car bombs kill 68 in Basra, Iraq

$700 million here, $700 million there

Burning through money in Iraq

[From a day in Salon]

I can almost hear the cheering from here...

Bush Spending $10M on Campaign Ads in 12 days

Sun, 25 Apr 2004 20:35:04 +0100

This is crazy. Spending $10 million in 12 days! Planning to spend $180 million on advertising!! Kerry doing similar!!! It's crazy!!!!

Think what could have been done with that money if put to a purpose other than trying to out sleaze your opponent. I guess the advertisers and media companies, at least, are happy.

And what will it be next time around? How long before you'll need to raise $1bn in order to have a credible chance of becoming president? You in the US are already in the situation of having two rich, well connected, ex-Yale boys duking it out. Heck if Bush gets a second term it wouldn't surprise me if he privatizes the white house and sells it to his pals.

I propose an alternative strategy:

Ban all paid political advertising of all kinds from all broadcast media.
Ban all financial donations.
Ban all paid political activity

From then on anyone wanting to be president has to raise a grass-roots movement to support them. Supporters cannot contribute dollars, they volunteer their time or they contribute their voice in support of their candidate. Likely people will only do this for someone they believe in quite strongly which should weed out all future members of the Bush family (any idea when Jeb plans to run?)

The current system just plays into the hands of the wealthy and well connected and, whilst my suggestions surely has many flaws, at least it would remove the financial advantage the current crop of bastards has over everyone else. Sure it would be difficult to get your message heard, but at least everyone would be in more or less the same boat.

Send him a postcard

Tue, 04 May 2004 19:35:47 +0100

How Ahmed Chalabi conned the neocons. The hawks who launched the Iraq war believed the deal-making exile when he promised to build a secular democracy with close ties to Israel. Now the Israel deal is dead, he's cozying up to Iran -- and his patrons look like they're on the way out. A Salon exclusive. [Salon.com]

This makes for fascinating reading.

I think any reasonable American (of whatever persuation) must vote against George Bush in the next election. Not because he is monstrously wrong in his policy decisions (although I believe it to be true) but because of the risk that he is monstrously wrong.

The dust won't settle properly for another year at least. Do you really want him still sat there smugly telling you how great everything is when you have finalized realised he has, after all, dropped you in the shit? On the other hand, if Iraq does turn into a democratic paradise in the Middle East you can always send him a post card to say 'sorry.'

The System Works

Fri, 07 May 2004 08:24:11 +0100

White House aides said Bush had chastised Rumsfeld for failing to tell him about pictures of prisoner mistreatment. [Source: Salon]

It's clear the torture system works and is in full swing (cf. CIA contract interrogators). Is this the cost of invading other countries? That we have to have torture to get the intelligence we need to save our asses?

Also I think that what has Bush so steamed is that Rumsfeld didn't tell him about the leak of the photos. I didn't believe his mock "outrage" at all; This is a man who makes fun of people he has executed (see #1, #2, #3) what does he care about Iraqi prisoners?

Four more years baby!

Mon, 10 May 2004 14:28:28 +0100

[Reproduced with the kind permission of Tom Tomorrow]

Lead me not into disaster

Tue, 25 May 2004 08:14:51 +0100

"Dangerous rhetoric" [Salon.com]

One the quotes I especially liked from that piece was:

Conservative columnist George F. Will: "This administration cannot be trusted to govern if it cannot be counted on to think and, having thought, to have second thoughts."

Why are politicians so incapable of admitting error? It's going to lead us into disaster after disaster. This, blind, "no turning back!", "damn the torpedos full steam ahead!" mentality is so full of shit and I'm sick of it.

What else do they got?

Tue, 15 Jun 2004 19:45:23 +0100

Recycling weak evidence for war [Salon.com]

Nothing is what.

"I'm a tenth level vice president!"

Sat, 26 Jun 2004 15:01:33 +0100

Al Gore, the president who never was, appeared twice in my favourite TV show Futurama so I have a soft spot for him. Apparently he's also talking a lot of sense. I'm quoting from an article by Thomas J.DiLorenzo about a recent Gore speech at the Georgetown University Law Center ("Democracy Itself is in Grave Danger," June 24, 2004):

For example, he posed the rhetorical question of what George Washington would think of the fact that "our current president claims the unilateral right to arrest and imprison American citizens indefinitely without giving them the right to see a lawyer or inform their families of their whereabouts, and without the necessity of even charging them with any crime"?

What would Washington think, asked Gore, of our presidents contention that he can "label any citizen an unlawful enemy combatant and that will be sufficient to justify taking away that citizens liberty even for the rest of his life, if the president chooses. And there is no appeal"?

"What would Thomas Jefferson think," said Gore, "of the curious and discredited argument from our Justice Department that the president may authorize what plainly amounts to the torture of prisoners. . .?"

What would Benjamin Franklin think, Vice President Gore rhetorically asked, "of President Bushs assertion that he has the inherent power even without a declaration of war by the Congress to launch an invasion of any nation on Earth, at any time he chooses, for any reason he wishes . . ."?

"How long would it take James Madison to dispose of our current presidents recent claim, in Department of Justice legal opinions, that he is no longer subject to the rule of law so long as he is acting in his role as Commander in Chief?" asked Gore.

As Vice President Gore explained, "President Bush has been attempting to conflate his commander-in-chief role and his head of government role to maximize . . . power . . ."
President Bush has "declared that our nation is now in a permanent state of war," Gore pointed out, "which he says justifies his reinterpretation of the Constitution in ways that increase his personal power at the expense of Congress, the courts, and every individual citizen."

The presidents lawyers, Gore further noted, have "concluded that the president, whenever he is acting in his role as commander in chief, is above and immune from the rule of law."

When I think of all the American's I have known the actions of President Bush & his administration do seem "bizarre and un-American." My American friends, you can do better. I hope you agree in November.

Summoned to Rome

Sat, 22 Jul 2006 11:55:38 +0100

On top of my previous reading I could have done without this piece by Chris Floyd:

Well, that didn't take long. Two weeks ago we wrote here that the "lockstep, lickspittle" U.S. Congress would scurry to give their approval to the dictatorial powers asserted by President George W. Bush after the Supreme Court struck down those claims in the Hamdan case earlier this month. And lo and behold, last week Republican Senator Arlen Specter introduced a bill that would not only confirm Bush's unrestrained, unconstitutional one-man rule – it would augment it, exalting the Dear Leader to even greater authoritarian heights.

A more slavish piece of work – and a more abject surrender of Congressional authority – can scarcely be imagined. And the implications are profound. Besides providing what amount to ex post facto cover for Bush's clearly criminal domestic surveillance programs, the measure is a stinging confirmation that there is no crime the Bushists can commit that the craven rubberstamps in Congress will not countenance. Aggressive war, torture, rendition, indefinite detention, "extrajudicial killing" (i.e., murder), monumental corruption, spying on citizens, megalomaniacal assertions of tyrannical power – it's all good for the corporate bagmen, gormless goobers and extremist cranks now polluting the chambers on Capitol Hill.

But the reverberations go even further. Specter's bill also represents a message from the American Establishment, giving its imprimatur to the codification of presidential dictatorship as the new form of government in the United States, replacing the constitutional republic established in 1789. The bill explicitly embraces the core of Bush's claim to authoritarian rule: that the president cannot be restrained by any law or court ruling in his arbitrary actions on any "matters pertaining" to national security – and of course it is the president who will decide, in secret, what pertains to national security and what does not.

As Glenn Greenwald notes, Specter's obsequious offering "bolsters the President's theories of unlimited executive power beyond Dick Cheney's wildest dreams." And Deadeye Dick has been dreaming of Oval Office tyranny since his days as an errand boy in the pay of Beltway crime boss Richard Nixon. As you recall, Nixon went down for a technicality – covering up a two-bit break-in –rather than for, say, murdering hundreds of thousands of people in the illegal bombing of Cambodia. Yet even that narrow avenue of redress has been closed off now. Obviously, Bush, like Nixon, was never going to be brought to justice for a war crime in which the entire Establishment was deeply complicit; but under the new dispensation, a renegade leader can no longer be removed even for a "lesser" infraction – like eviscerating the liberty of American citizens – because the president has been placed beyond the law. Whatever the Leader does is lawful and right, no matter what the legal statutes say.

You think this is an exaggeration? Not a whit. Bush's own top legal minions have asserted this royal prerogative in sworn testimony before Congress – after the Supreme Court decision in Hamdan. Last week, Deputy Attorney General Steve Bradbury told the Senate Judiciary Committee – chaired by none other than our old friend "Spineless" Specter – that "the president is always right" in his interpretation of judicial rulings. Even when, as in the case under discussion, Bush was publicly lying by stating that the Court's decision had approved the establishment of his concentration camp in Guantanamo, when of course the justices had not even addressed that issue. But who cares? After all, the "president is always right" – even when he lies, even when he breaks the law, even when he orders torture, even when he rapes a nation in an unprovoked war.

Continue reading...

I am a big fan of the 1976 mini-series I, Claudius. If it wavers somewhat from the excellent books by Robert Graves (I, Claudius and Claudius the God) I think that can be forgiven for Graves too has been critcised for playing fast and loose with the evidence in places and, well, it's just so good.

For those unfamiliar with them I can recommend all three. I've read the books twice and have watched the (approximately 10 hour long) mini-series probably yearly since about 1996. I just finished watching it again this week and it's as compelling to watch now as it was that first time.

The cast includes Derek Jacobi, Brian Blessed, George Baker, the excellent Sian Phillips, John Hurt, and Patrick Stewart (with hair no less), Stratford Johns, John Rhys-Davies, Bernard Hepton, Charles Kay, ... the list goes on and on. It's pretty much a who's-who's of British acting talent from the mid seventies. None of them have given better performances and the whole thing is so well put together (despite it's budget) that you always feel like you're right in among the intrigues.

I, Cladius plots the downfall of the Roman Republic ostensibly laid at the door of civil war but largely the result of the scheming machinations of the ruling family. The Senate hands supreme power to Augustus and names him "Emperor". Big mistake. During his reign the mechanism of government is increasingly the use of executive power and patronage. If August was, arguably, a benovelent dictator he nevertheless paved the way for his successors.

By the later part of the reign of Tiberius the Senate was no more than a rubber stamp for the Emperors whims. Roman politics becomes a cesspool and those who oppose the ruling family find themselves poisoned, banished, or executed on trumped up treason charges. The state is preserved, for the most part - the legions see to that - and the people are distracted enough.

Perhaps you can imagine then just how it strikes me to read of the craven way that the U.S. congress is kowtowing to Bush the Younger. Successive presidents have, following the ignoble example of Lincoln, asserted their authority over the constitution claiming that executive authority trumps all. Bush's "the Commander in Chief is above the law" routine is just the latest and most pernicious example. In complementary fashion a parade of ever more spineless congressmen and senators have conspired to make it possible. The Specter act is just the latest and most heinous example.

The secret prisons, the torture, the star chamber trials, the mass wiretapping, and the perversion of the courts. All this could come straight from the pages of Graves description of the later rule of Tiberius through his notorius (and ill-fated) commander of the guards, Alias Sejanus.

Sejanus: Sign it.
Gallus: What is it?
Sejanus: A confession.
Gallus: To what?
Sejanus: Your conspiracy with Drusus to subvert the armies of the Rhine. Sign it.
Gallus: You wrote it, you sign it.

Perhaps this is all fanciful thinking, a storm in a tea cup. Perhaps the heart of the U.S. republic beats as strong as it ever did. Perhaps Washington, Jefferson, Madison, Hamilton and the rest wouldn't be up in arms, perhaps...

But the ill-wind blowing from ~~Rome~~Washington seems to me as ominous as it is foul smelling. Scratch the surface and look fingerprints of the Bush family and their friends all over the empire. Look how they thrive and tell me there is no Livia working hard for her Tiberius. Look at the cronies surrounding Bush, the troops stationed in new provinces, the money going to old friends. Look at all this and tell me all's well. Keep on saying it when Jeb or (lord help you all) Jenna get hold of the seal.

Cladius dreamed of restoring the republic by showing Rome what a sewer her government had become. He made the sewer before he died but was cheated of his republic:

The frogpool wanted a king,
Jove sent them Old King Log
I have been as deaf and blind and wooden as a log
Violent disorders call for violent remedies
Yet I am, I must remember, Old King Log
I shall float inertly in the stagnant pool
Let all the poisons lurking in the mud hatch out

It all makes one glad to live in the provinces.