To aver, as Geraldine Ferrarro and others are doing, that Hillary's problare the result of gender is the biggesst collection of farts since God invented beans. Mrs. Clinton is having problems as a result of her many personal and politcal failings. She is just not presidential and that has nothing to do with her sex. I for one lived in fear she might get the nomination.
West Virginia is not soccer moms and NASCAR dads. West Virginia (and parts of Kentucky) are Hatfields and McCoys. Until well into the 1960s, West Virginia had the highest murder rate in the country. West Virginia is populated by Scots borderers. Their customs include that if you are elected Clan leader you begin by killing all rivals within your own clan before going out to murder others. My brother was a social worker there in the 60s. He got used to facing a shotgun any time he made a home visit. He got used to his clients showing up with loaded guns and a jug of corn. He persuaded some that some vitamins for pellagra ridden kids was not a government plot
My central disagreement with Mrs. Clinton is about the war. I could easily forgive her initial vote, and ever her refusal to apologize for it, were it not for her consistently evasive and at best murky comments ever since. This is morally horrifying as well as completely at odds with any realistic approach to problems in the Middle East. I cannot forgive or trust someone so simultaneously naive and and cynical about Iraq.
Absent the intervention of an international tribunal, we have to consider Bush's war crimes- along with his attempts to subvert the Constitution and destroy the American Republic as matters for the American courts and the Anglo-American precedents governing High Crimes. For the present discussion I am going to move past the issue of guilt, since that is a matter of public record, to deal with the sentencing aspect of the case. I believe the governing precedent is the case of Charles I.
Our Constitution requires referral to a criminal court once the Senate has pronounced his guilt, but as the Stuart case demonstrates, the call for the death penalty is a strong one.
Most of us track the performance of our representatives via press releases and voting records. At the same time there is a long tradition of elected officials publishing position papers on issues. It's my impression that not much of this nature has appeared on Iraq. In fact you might say that decisive or explicit stands on the occupation are uncommon. To be sure, the iraq situation is fluid and complicated. Yet, the absence of strong declarations suggests that many in Congress would rather avoid the topic.
God help me, I just read the Mackris
suit filed against o'Reilly. Most assuredly I should have better things to do, but Bill's attack on KOS stirred my bile.
Now, the fact that Bill is a slimy pervert is something we can take fro granted. Judging from the transcript, I would predict that he is impotent in normal sexual intercourse. What is interesting the PARTICULAR kind of perversion he exhibits, Readers of the transcript will noye that never does he mention contact between male and female genitals.
Professor Feldman's piece in the Sunday Times Magazine, THE UNDEPARTED', seems to boil down to a public relations theory for indefinite occupation of Iraq. Strip away his pose of even-handedness and the nub of his argument is simply that we lose face and hearten the Islamists by teminating our presence.
In fact is in every real sense AL Qeada loses by American withdrawal. The major contending forces in Iraq are the Shia and Baath Sunnis. Both are comitted enemies of Al Qeada. Only our destabilzing presence allows Al Qeada to continue to operate in Iraq.
We can categorically assert that any intelligent person who supports the Iraq occupation is lying, or intentionally attempting to deceive. Thus we accept that the statements of Bill Kristol, Cheney, Perle and Ledeen are no more than morally treasonous blather.
Nonetheless, there is something especially loathsome and revolting about Lieberman's contributions to this toxic pool. Of course there is a special odium attaching to the turncoat; the ostensibly liberal man and Democrat who on one issue runs interference for Bush, taking the side of the demons.
Lets consider the cost:
200 billion dollars. (Imagine what that sum could buy).
2000+ American lives
50,000 Iraqi lives
A million more Iraqis leaving the country, leaving the nation bereft
of doctors, teachers and professionals.
The final loss of civic order and a state of vicious chronic anrarchy
Extremely dangerous regional turmoil involving all adjacent states.
Why is Bill Kristol smiling? Beacause so far the Iraq adventure is an unqualified success from a neocon point of view. To be sure the ideal hasn't been obtained - which would be a docile puppet state, willing to sell the national oil companies to American companies and establish diplomatic and trade relations with Israel. But on the whole we have to admit the Project for an American Century is alive and well in Iraq.
Rumsfeld is not a nice guy. he is a staunch conservative, and a loyal team player. He has been a happy and effective spokesman for the adminstration on Iraq. Nonetheless, he is not a rabid zealot, or a determined promulgator of right wing and neo-con fantasies.
In essence, now and from the beginning, Rumsfeld has had one goal in mind: the transformation of the military from a WW II mode (massive tank batallions, etc) into a force more ready and equipped to deal with insurgencies and guerilla warfare. In large measure I agree with his ideas - and besides, they are a lot cheaper.
The phrase 'unitary executive' has an interesting history in government debate. The core idea seems to be monolithic governmment -as opposed to checks and balances. In other words that finally governmental authority is vested in a single voice or power that is not subject to debate or challenge. This is the sense in which Bush uses it.
I believe the phrase originated in colonial political debate, when English and American Tories used it in arguing for the necessity of continuing submission to England. See Bernard Belyn's ORIGINS OF AMERICAn IDEOLOGY.
The current usage 'Islamofacism' is so singularly inane. As a docrtine, facisim championed above all the power of the state, and the obligation of the citizen to be subservient and responsible to the state, subverting the liberal-democratic notion that the state should be subservient to the people. Facism is a neo Hegelian and quintessientially Western political ideal, with roots in folks as diverse as Croce, Herder and even Fichte.
Let's please add Kirsten Gillibrand to the the netroots list. Starting with the negative, John Sweeney, of Miami mob fame really has to go. Bush has no more loyal mobster than Sweeney in his gang. More upbeat, in spite of the 2/1 Rebublican advantage, scuttlebut and polls suggest that we are doing quite well in this liberal Republican district.
Put simply, this gang of conspirators -the neocons- represent the most treasonous and subversive force in American politics today. Unlike the Limbaughs and the Hannitys these are men of education and culture. Yet for years now they have bent their minds to a messiainic and fundamentally anti-American program with loyalty only to some grandiose fantasy of world domination. On this they are true to their intellectual origins
Those who today are described as 'progressive' 'left-wing', and so-forth, (I'm thinking of Howard Dean, Kos and friends) are in fact not of the left. The stuggle in Anerican politcs today is between the moderate right wing and the extemists. No serious left wing voice has been heard in this counry for 40 years.
Quite properly, we have focussed on the legal aspects of the adminstration's torture program. However I think there are some other facets deserving attention.
For example, ABC reported that there are 14 CIA employees trained in torture techniques currently working at Guantanomo. Now, I would like to know who were the trainers and how these men fit into the chain of command.
Further, I would like to know just when and how these techniques became part of the CIA repertoire.
