The conservatives are in power. They have the executive branch. They have Congress, and they have a decent share of the judiciary as well. The military is on their side. (So they say.) They got their war. They got their Patriot Act. The “mainstream” media they so love to disparage does their daily bidding. They have a media outlet, the most popular news organisation in the US, which acts pretty much as the conservative propaganda arm. (Watch FOX News Channel for a week. Look for two things: News reports critical in any way of the Bush Administration, and news reports in support, in any way, of any Democrat or non-GOP initiative. You won’t find it.)
The so-called “Liberals” are disorganized, out of power, without a leader, without any real influence to speak of, except for their presence in the blogsphere. Democrats in Congress are limited to fillibustering legislattion and holding meetings in basement rooms.
Yet, there is this from Rush Limbaugh:
Let me tell you something, folks, if we are hit again, if we are hit again, we need to hold these people in our country who are undermining our efforts responsible. It ain’t going to be the FBI’s fault next time. It isn’t going to be the CIA’s fault next time. It isn’t going to be some bureaucracy’s fault next time. It’s going to be the fault of politicians, left-wing groups and the like who have names and identities and spend their every waking moment trying to obstruct our ability to secure intelligence information for our own national security.
Like everything they do, conservatives have no clue. Then, when the time comes for responsibility, they blame those who saw what they wanted to do, and tried to stop it.
Everything the Bush Administration has tried to do has been a still birth.
The mistake conservativs such as Rushbo are making is in thinking that those who have opposed them and continue to do so out of patriotism, moral compass, ethical grounds and plain old common sense will simply lay down and allow them to tar and feather them with their lying public relations games and nonsense.
Think again ass clowns.
Odds are, there is going to be another attack on US soil. It will likely be worse than 9/11.
It won’t be the fault of those who have oppossed an arrogant US policy for the past forty years. It won’t be the fault of those who have faught against a nuclear build up. It won’t be the fault of those who have fought for human rights here and abroad. It won’t be the fault of those who have fought against US supported dictatorships, (Iraq, Egypt, Chile, El Salvador, etc.). It won’t be the fault of those who saw 9/11 coming, and fought against it, only to be called “moonbats”, “loony” and “traitors”. It will not be the fault of those who fought against turning America into that which we fight against.
It will be the fault of people like Rush and those who support a policy and worldview which is unsustainable.
Oldman over at BOP does an excellent job of analysing some of the realities in regard to impeaching the president, reasons behind it, etc… in Here Be Dragons:
Given the instability in Iraq, the poor governing numbers in the polls so far, and the increased price of oil that will likely be sustained or even run up another bull market then Bush’s popularity only has one place to go which is down. Even another terrorist attack might not rally but sour the public on a President that was all talk and no talent in his execution of basic issues.
Like the late Palestinian leader Arafat however Democrats are weak not because of the issues, the American public is with them or will soon be with them on the issues (including some 70% for nationalized healthcare) but because they never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity. If the Democrats lose the 2006 elections, truly they have nobody to blame but their own party apparatus and candidates. However there is a danger in over-reaching.
Despite my personal desire to see GWB impeached, I don’t think this would be a good idea. First of all, impeachment of GWB would put Cheney into power, and if it didn’t then it would precipitate a power struggle. Second of all, the main political purpose of impeaching a lame duck President in the last two years of his second term, because impeachment before 2006 elections is highly unlikely, would be to tar and pin the responsibility and odium on his party in general.
The outcry from the public might in fact be enough to split off a large enough wedge of “rats leaving sinking ship” Congressmen in order to create an impeachment majority, but that might not be a good idea. Yes, I know they impeached Clinton, but the rules for Democrats and Republicans are not the same in the present time. Even if a successfull impeachment movement occured it would require splitting the Republicans and would engender a hard core group of embittered partisans on the right who would cry disenfranchisement.[...]
While GWB certainly deserves to be impeached, so did Harry Truman and Lyndon B. Johnson. Truman clearly violated the Constitution in attempting to use a UN Security Council vote rather than a US Congressional approval as vindication to go to war in Korea. Johnson was just as culpable or more so than GWB in the “Gulf of Tonkin” fabrication of causus belli as GWB was in the WMD-intel scandal. So merely fabricating a case for war or confabulating one isn’t sufficient by itself, though it may be a part of such a case for impeachment.
Nixon’s removal was clearly necessary because he was caught directly conspiring to use US government powers to persecute political opponents. This crossed the line even with many Republicans at the time. Oddly enough, GWB’s very simpleton nature much like the gradual senility of Reagan protects him from any such charges. Rove never told GWB that the election was fixed, and GWB never asked, and even if a child could have figured out from the election day exit-polls and Rove’s strangely confident insistence that the election would turn Bush’s way that something terribly wrong was amiss then well GWB has less of an IQ than a bright child.
Impeaching President Bush before a new Constitutional consensus has been reached in this nation would cause a terrible split and schism and lead almost inevitably to Civil War. That may indeed happen, but it would be short sighted. While I hate the guy, it is far better to let him linger and tar him with the deeds of his own hands’ fashioning, until he and the Republicans become noxious to every single non-fanatic American. The better route is to let the stench of mendacity and fanaticism rise to high heaven while the apologists and defenders of such a creed look ever more creepy and ever more deluded.
Some thoughts… Revealing the scandal of Watergate and prosecuting those involved was necessary and important, but it seems to me that the conservative rush to grasp power since then has been a direct reaction to that scandal.
It was, and is, seen by many in conservative quarters as an attack by the liberal establishment, the media and the educated elite, upon the instution of the presidency, and Nixon in particular and conservative values specifically.
So, impeaching Bush would most definitley bring the same reaction down the line, ten, twenty years from now. It would be worse than ever.
Solving the constituional issues first is indeed the wise path.
Most everyone with a scintilla of sense and ethical backbone, from both the left and the right, has disavowed this little gem from the bowels of the right-wing noise machine:
Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton turned furious and considered legal action after learning bestselling author Ed Klein would allege in a new book: Bill Clinton raped her — resulting in the conception of daughter Chelsea Clinton!
“[Author] Klein is going to rot in hell for this,” a well-placed source close to Hillary said over the weekend.
The explosive charge comes in THE TRUTH ABOUT HILLARY: WHAT SHE KNEW, WHEN SHE KNEW IT, AND HOW FAR SHE’LL GO TO BECOME PRESIDENT — set for release next week.
It is all to sell a book, of course. It was eagerly profferd by the Drudge Report and NewsMax, of course, which offers this little morsel: Publishing insiders say the book and its revelations could destroy her bid to run for the presidency in 2008.
The tactic is notable for a few things. Notice how it claims that Hillary Clinton was raped by her husband Bill, yet, wisely attempts to dispell any sympathy for her by attributing a quote to her that indicates vengennce. The right-wing faithful are going to believe it anyway. But, by labeling any reaction as vengeful right off the bat assists the entire fantasy. It’s basic disinfo tactic.
And, people actually believe it.
John Cole at Balloon Juice puts it best, while not calling it disinfo straight out, he does see it for what it is:
The only people who are going to read this book are the true believers and the true defenders. As a side note, when you hear the usual suspects echoing ths charge as fact in some circles, it probably should be pointed out that this makes anything Howard Dean has said seem positively innocuous.
I have had just about enough of these so-called ‘insider’ true stories that are really nothing more than smear jobs, regardless of the target.
The thing is, it’s more than a smear job. It’s disinformation. Because, regardless of whether it is true or not, it will be repeated, and believed. Like the scandalous tidbit offered by an attorney in court that is objected to and sustained by the judge, it does not matter. It is out there. People will believe it.
It’s a simple attempt at working on Hillary Clinton’s image as weak, a victim, attached to a “rapist”. Hillary Clinton is feared by the extreme right. They hate her passionately. Their works prove the point.
So does the reaction of the ever loyal wingnut troops. Take a gander of the reaction to this story over at Free Republic.
Enough to make any sane, decent, truth seeking person quite ill.
Watching this entire event unfold in the media was interesting, to say the least. My take on it…
We live in a judgemental society. Combine that with celebrity worship, and one can see how famous persons on trial has such a huge following. It is, ultimately, fed by the media. Specifically, those in the media who function within that area of judging others. It’s part of the gossip trade.
On MSNBC for example, Dan Abrams was absolutely incredulous at one point, unable to understand how such a strange person such as Jackson, a man who has disfigured himself and who has admitted to sleeping in the same bed with boys, could not have been found guilty.
Fortunately, the jury was smart enough to weigh the evidence. Being a freak and sleeping in the same bed with boys, although odd and not advisable, is not a crime.
The legal system is set up, at its best, to wade through the judgementalism and find the truth, as presented in the case.
One can say that the prosecution didn’t do their job. But, really, if they didn’t have more than they presented, why did this case even go to trial?
Because, it means publicity and fame for those involved. And, because there is always the chance that a judgemental jury will find someone like Jackson guilty by association.
Where am I?
You are currently viewing the archives for June, 2005 at buzz twang.
