The Bush speech

Well, I made myself listen to all 45 minutes or so of Bush's State of the Union tonight. Sure enough, it was one more encore of his endless droning about effectively having to be emperor instead of president -- needing to "surveil" in whatever way he wishes without warrants. And as always, of course, he simply skipped mention of FISA, even though that act's availability of warrants has allowed and continues to allow 100% of what is needed to provide national security.

Bush reaffirmed his belief that the U.S. should be charging around the world building "democracies," even though the most recent of these "democracies" one after the other have been electing fundamentalist fanatics to office. As one commentator put it, the founders of the nation intended to spread democracy by example, not by military force. The rest of the speech? Almost nothing about Iran. Nothing at all about North Korea. Almost nothing about Katrina and the devastation of New Orleans.

Perhaps what surprised me most in the commentaries that I saw was the number of Republicans who seemingly don't want to be anywhere near His Lordship's coattails.

Helen Thomas re Bush

Irrepressible veteran Washington reporter Helen Thomas has never let George Bush overwhelm her. In an article published this past Friday, she had this to say:

We are now learning what President Bush considers to be the limits of his power—nothing.

In public appearances this week, Bush defended his program of domestic spying without court approval, citing the inherent war powers of the presidency under the U.S. Constitution.

The president points to his status as commander-in-chief and the resolution — approved by Congress three days after the 9/11 attacks — authorizing him to use "all necessary and appropriate force" against the terrorists.

It is an obvious overreach of presidential prerogative; thin justification for what amounts to a snooping foray against Americans and others in the U.S.

It all smacks of France's Louis XIV's famous dictum: "L'etat, c'est moi"— "I am the state."

Plain truth about Bush

I do not see how anyone could say it more succinctly than Bob Herbert in today's New York Times:

"Fantasy may be in fashion. Reality may have been shoved into the shadows on Mr. Bush's watch. But the plain truth is that he is the worst president in memory, and one of the worst of all time. Many thousands of people — men, women and children — have died unnecessarily (and thousands more are suffering) because of his misguided and mishandled policies."

Dr. Seuss goes to D.C.

Longer than my usual entries in this blog, but I cannot resist:

Tom DeLay Denies All Charges (As Told by Dr. Suess)
By Dan Tynan
Source: The Witlist

That Abramoff!
That Abramoff!
I do not like that Abramoff!
"Would you like to play some golf?"
I do not want to play some golf.
I do not want to, Abramoff.
"We could fly you there for free.
Off to Scotland, by the sea."
I do not want to fly for free.
I don't like Scotland by the sea.
I do not want to play some golf.
I do not want to, Abramoff.
"Would you, could you, take this bribe?
Could you, would you, for the tribe?"
I would not, could not, take this bribe.
I could not, would not, for the tribe.
"If we strong armed corporations
Into giving you donations?
They'd be funnelled to your PAC.
Would you then cut us some slack?"
I would not, could not, cut you slack.
I do not care about my PAC.
I do not want to play some golf.
I do not want to, Abramoff.
"A plane! A plane! A plane! A plane!
Would you, could you, for a plane?"
I could not, would not, for a plane.
Not for a bribe, not for the tribe.
Not for donations from corporations.
Not for my PAC, not for some slack.
Not from any schmoe named Jack.
"Would you help us buy some ships
Perfect for quick gambling trips?
Talk to people in the know
For a little quid pro quo?
Oh come now, don't be a snob.
Let us give your wife a job."
I will not help you buy some ships.
I do not wish for gambling trips.
My wife does not need a job
Even if she is a snob.
We do not like bribes, can't you see?
Why won't you just let me be?
"You do not like bribes, so you say.
Try them, try them, and you may.
Try them and you may, I say."
Jack. If you will let me be
I will try them, then you'll see.
Say.... I do like playing golf!
I like it, I do, Abramoff!
I do like Scotland by the sea.
It's such a thrilling place to be!
And I will take this bribe.
And I will help the tribe.
And I will take donations
From big corporations.
And I will help you buy some ships.
And I will take quick gambling trips.
Say, I'll give anyone the shaft
As long as it involves some graft!
I do so like playing golf!
Thank you! Thank you,
Abramoff!

More Molly, same article

From the same article (see yesterday's blog) by Molly Ivins to Democrat wimps like Hillalry, final paragraphs:

"Bush, Cheney and Co. will continue to play the patriotic bully card just as long as you let them. War brings out the patriotic bullies. In World War I, they went around kicking dachshunds because they were "German dogs." They did not, however, go around kicking German shepherds. The minute someone impugns your patriotism for opposing this war, turn on them like a snarling dog and explain what loving your country really means. Or eviscerate them with wit (look up Mark Twain on the war in the Philippines). Or point out the latest in the endless 'string of bad news.'

"Do not sit there cowering and pretending the only way to win is as Republican-lite. If the Washington-based party can't get up and fight, we'll find someone who can."

Molly Ivins' plain English

I hope Molly Ivins' latest article came out in a ton of newspapers. It was in today's Arizona Daily Star. Here is part of what she had to say about our horrendous lack of government leadership:

"What kind of courage does it take, for mercy's sake? The majority of the American people think the war in Iraq is a mistake and we should get out. The majority (65 percent) of the American people want single-payer health care and are willing to pay more taxes to get it. The majority (86 percent) favor raising the minimum wage. The majority (60 percent) favor repealing Bush's tax cuts, or at least those that go only to the rich. The majority (66 percent) want to reduce the deficit not by cutting domestic spending, but by reducing Pentagon spending or raising taxes. The majority (77 percent) think we should do "whatever it takes" to protect the environment. The majority (87 percent) think big oil companies are gouging consumers and would support a windfall profits tax. That is the center, you fools. Whom are you afraid of?"

Screwball triumvirate

I read about half an hour ago that the dingbat Vice President again was speaking of how we liberated Afghanistan. Maybe more than dingbat, it's "blind as a bat." Aware people all around the globe know that Afghanistan is the world capital of heroin production. The Taliban have resurrected. Suicide bombers compete with their counterparts in Iraq. US guards protect president Karzai while the warlords really rule the country.

And now I find these words in a hard-hitting article by Robert Scheer in yesterday's San Francisco Chronicle:

"in his speeches, Bush clings to the notion that the battle against terrorism is going well because, according to his spin, we have been able to eliminate it in Afghanistan and are now destroying the last vestiges of this scourge in Iraq. On his visit to Kabul last month, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld elaborated on this absurdity by declaring bloody, backward Afghanistan as a 'model' of progress in the war on terrorism -- even as he was admitting that 'Iraq is several years behind.'"

It is not just a cabal there in the White House. it is a nut farm.

Smiley-faced fascism

Quoted today by Wm. Rivers Pitt in his Truthout web site article:

The writer Umberto Eco, in a 1995 essay titled "Ur-Fascism," delineated several core elements that have existed in one form or another in every fascist state in history: "Parliamentary democracy is by definition rotten, because it does not represent the voice of the people, which is that of the sublime leader. Doctrine outstrips reason, and science is always suspect. The national identity is provided by the nation's enemies. Argument is tantamount to treason. Perpetually at war, the state must govern with the instruments of fear. Citizens do not act; they play the supporting role of 'the people' in the grand opera that is the state."

"Unitary" presidential power

 In today's Consortium News, Robert Parry has written a strong article on the "unitary" theory of presidential power. Here is a part of that article:

"Under Bush, 'signing statements' have become commonplace and amount to his rejection of legal restrictions especially as they bear on presidential powers. A search of the White House Internet site finds 101 entries for the word 'unitary' in Bush's statements and other official references.

"In December 2005, for instance, Bush cited the 'unitary' powers of the Presidency when he signed the McCain amendment, which prohibited cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment of detainees in U.S. custody. In a 'signing statement,' Bush reserved the right to bypass the law by invoking his commander-in-chief powers... (Since) Bush considers his commander-in-chief authority boundless, he can choose to waive the torture ban whenever he wants, much as he ordered wiretaps of American citizens without getting a court warrant as is required by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act...

"(Supreme Court nominee) Alito has argued that a powerful executive is what the Founding Fathers always intended. In a speech in 2000, he said that when the U.S. Constitution was drafted in 1787, the framers 'saw the unitary executive as necessary to balance the huge power of the legislature and the factions that may gain control of it.'

"Scholars, however, have disputed Alito's historical argument by noting that the framers worried most about excessive executive powers, like those of a king, and devised a complex system of checks and balances with the Legislature in the preeminent position to limit the President's powers. [WSJ, Jan. 5, 2006]"

How much of America is paying attention?

These words are from the Jan. 9 NY Times column by Bob Herbert:

"For a president - any president - to O.K. eavesdropping on U.S. citizens on American soil without a warrant is an abomination. First, it's illegal - and for very good reasons. Spying on the populace is a giant step toward totalitarianism. In the worst-case scenario, it's the nightmare of Soviet-style surveillance.

"Related to that is the all-important matter of the separation of powers, which is the absolutely crucial cornerstone of our form of government - our bulwark against tyranny. An elaborate system of checks and balances (you need a warrant from a court to wiretap, for example) prevents the concentration of too much power in any one branch, or any one person. Get rid of the checks and balances and you've gotten rid of the United States as we've known it.

"If President Bush wants to spy on Americans, let him follow the law and get a warrant. He's the president, not the king."

The question is: Will enough US citizens wake up soon enough to stymie Bush and his neo-fascist cabal?

Another Bush achievement

This just popped into my mailbox. I don't suppose the mainline press will pay much attention to the study though.
ricardo

"A new study by two leading academic experts suggests that the costs of the Iraq war will be substantially higher than previously reckoned. In a paper presented to this week’s Allied Social Sciences Association annual meeting in Boston MA., Harvard budget expert Linda Bilmes and Columbia University Professor and Nobel Laureate Joseph E. Stiglitz calculate that the war is likely to cost the United States a minimum of nearly one trillion dollars and potentially over $2 trillion."

Jack and Saint Ralph

Well, well, well, well. One of cocky felon Jack Abramoff's partners in crime was goody-goody Christian-shoes himself, the venerable former leader of the Christian Coalition, Ralph Reed. Apparently Ralph is especially remembered for his holy rants against the evils of gambling. Will word now get to the pews that Really Religious Ralph is really a world-class religious hypocrite? In the words of the irreverent and quasi-blasphemous Maureen Dowd: "And then there's Ralph Reed, the choirboy Bible thumper who used his links to Christian groups to immorally play Indian tribes off against each other."

Too bad we can't go back to the old English pillory and stocks. I'd put Abramoff in the pillory and Reed in the stocks, preferably at the entrance to one of the Native American reservations whose residents they ripped off.

Cindy Sheehan

Cindy Sheehan wrote a long report on Dec. 23, including these words:

"No matter if we all speak differently accented English, Spanish, or the heavy Glaswegian accent of my Scottish sister in sorrow, Rose Gentle - whose gentle-giant son, Gordon, was killed by Blair and Bush in Iraq in July of 2004 - our hearts all speak the same idiom of pain, and we sing the same lament of futile loss."

I am sure that Bush longs to shut Cindy up. I am just as sure that she will not shut up -- not until this senseless, immoral, illegal war and occupation are called off.

Thank you, Cindy. May your echoes grow like a huge cleansing storm.