Neither Obama nor Hillary have any concept that, unless we become energy independent ASAP, we'll be bogged down in endless wars over oil and pipelines, where the poor U.S. mercenaries enticed from the poor neighborhoods of America will kill foreigners for oil. They both endlessly praise the military. Neither seems to know that between 51% -62% of the national budget goes for past, present and future wars (figure in interest on the national debt, veteran's benefits, etc). They don't get it that the framers favored a militia as the backbone of democracy and deeply feared a standing army. The framers intent and profound interest in freedom led them to conclude that the military should be under civilian control. In their speeches both candidates never make it clear that the President Is Commander In Chief of the armed forces, not the population as a whole. (George Bush is not my commander in chief, I'm not in the military.) Both Obama and Hillary pander to the worst militaristic instincts of the American people. They will not speak the truth that the dead and maimed have died for nothing, that it is not sweet and fitting for one to die in needless, illegal, immoral wars. Neither candidate seems to know that our army of poor mercenaries, coming from the ghettos and barrios to become trained killers and deployed to the 700 military bases the U.S. maintains abroad and often must act as stooges to do the bidding in the failing American Empire. Neither candidate will cut off funding to stop the genocidal slaughter in Iraq. If you include the U.S. led embargo by Bill Clinton, at least 2 million Iraqi civilians have died as the result of our interference in a sovereign nation. What a disgrace to a self-styled moral people!

Neither emphasizes nor knows that the framers of the constitution feared empire and knew it swallows up a Republic. Neither emphasis that the framers wanted a rule of law, not a rule of men. While Obama occasionally mentions torture, he does not at all speak with passion and understanding that we have become an outlaw nation, a torture republic disgraced in the eyes of the moral parts of the world. They do not say that the traitor George Bush has bent the common law to his will and is a tyrant who sees himself above the law. Neither one speaks of the dangers of theocracy where evil rulers do so in the name of god -- evil rulers such as George Bush, Darius I, Caligula and Nero. Instead they pander to the ignorant religious in America. Too, these candidates never clearly, forcefully state and affirm that the right of conscience, freedom of speech, thought and action are consistently being trampled upon by FISA courts, the NSA, secret intelligence agencies, the FBI and the military.

Neither forcefully speaks to the truth that the U.S. infrastructure is in a state of collapse and that only an abandonment of U.S. imperial ambitions will free up the necessary monies tp rebuild our country. Under these kinds of democrats all America will eventually resemble New Orleans, as we become a third world country owned by other nations and private investors.

Neither speaks the harsh truth of what we must do to lead the world from the precipice of destruction caused by climate change. The human race will exterminate itself without radical changes in consumption of carbon. The American people must be prepared to radically alter their standards of living to save the planet. We do not hear these truths from these candidates.

And , even though George W. Bush has assumed dictatorial powers by use of finding statements, lying us into a War, refusing to enforce laws passed by congress, has authorized torture, has suspended parts of the 4th, 5th, 6th, and 7th amendment to the U.S. constitution. as , in effect stated, as did the Sun King Louis, "The State Is Me," and offers us a new version of the Divine Right Of Kings (the clown-in-chief actually says he's guided by God!!), neither candidate will call for his impeachment.

A plague on both the houses of Clinton and Obama. Where are the Paul Wellstones of this country? Where is Martin Luther King, Jr. Where is Abraham Lincoln? Where are the profiles in courage? Gone. Gone to their graves. What a time! What morality ! Oh tempora, oh mores! What a sad spectacle we face: A parade of the horribles from the Republicans and shallow incompetents from the Democrats.







































A plague on both their houses.

Please don't say "welcome to DU" in response to this post. I'm a ten hour a day working man who doesn't have much time to write, although I enjoy looking at what DUers post. As a follower of Cicero, as opposed to Machiavelli, I would go with Obama. Cicero argued, that to be a success in politics, you need to be moral; you need to be a truth teller. It may be expedient to lie but, not only is it wrong, but it will ultimately be unsuccessful. Machiavelli argued that there is nothing wrong with lying as long as it succeeds. When Bill Clinton ( obviously with Hillary's knowledge) distorted and lied about Obama's position on several issues he was not moral as Cicero would say , but even on Machiavelli's terms he did wrong, since it did not succeed. Evidently, Ted Kennedy was so offended by this that, in part, it was responsible for his endorsement of Barack Obama. The Billaries' notorious use of triangulation (there they are at the point of the triangle throwing bones to the political base at the left and the right) is contrived, immoral Machiavellian politics. What bothers me is that some of my self styled intellectual friends know that the Billaries lie and my friends don't care. I am saddened that, in their case, the exercise of cynical power does not bother them. The L.A. Times has it right. It is the love of power, not tempered by morality, that has got the U.S. in so much trouble abroad. Bill Clinton, part of team Billary, led the way to the deaths of some one million Iraqis as the result of U.S. sponsored sanctions of Iraq, hundreds of thousands of them being children. While it is true that George W. Bush is a moral monster that does not erase the extreme viciousness of the Billaries against innocents in Iraq. One can only hope that Obama can do better. Personally, I can only hope as he is mainly a product of a violent culture on the verge of imperial collapse.

No he hasn't lost on this one: 1) Hillary made a mistake when she attacked Obama after the debate. I can see her doing it during the debate but she dragged it out by talking about his lack of experience, etc. Maybe they thoight he had a "glass jaw" and couldn't take a punch, but it was a miscalculation; 2) He's behind her in the polls and an alley fight over nothing (there isn't anything of substance to either camp's statements -- substance is rare in American politics with some rare exceptions such as Kucinich and Edwards) put Obama on more of an equal playing field with Clinton; 3) and the Mr. Outside The Beltway versus Mrs. Inside The Beltway works to Obama's advantage; and $) It reminds me that Husband Bill started the genocidal activities against Irag ( 500,000 dead Iraqi children because of the Clinton led embargo) and makes me hope that Obama isn't cut from the same immoral suit of militaristic clothing. Of course, I have no idea if he is or not. America (Clusterfuck Country) is a very violent place whose solution to everything it to kill it, imprison it, or flush it down the ghetto toilet. Obama. even though he's "black" may have his hands on those levers. Never forget, Hillary voted for the war when many of us, including Obama opposed it. Keeping the debate going helps Obama.

I'd like to why you thing Obama's lost this one. Can you provide any premise support for your conclusion or are you like most people in Clusterfuck Country, clueless when it comes to argumentation and political analysis?

No he hasn't lost on this one: 1) Hillary made a mistake when she attacked Obama after the debate. I can see her doing it during the debate but she dragged it out by talking about his lack of experience, etc. Maybe they thoight he had a "glass jaw" and couldn't take a punch, but it was a miscalculation; 2) He's behind her in the polls and an alley fight over nothing (there isn't anything of substance to either camp's statements -- substance is rare in American politics with some rare exceptions such as Kucinich and Edwards) put Obama on more of an equal playing field with Clinton; 3) and the Mr. Outside The Beltway versus Mrs. Inside The Beltway works to Obama's advantage; and $) It reminds me that Husband Bill started the genocidal activities against Irag ( 500,000 dead Iraqi children because of the Clinton led embargo) and makes me hope that Obama isn't cut from the same immoral suit of militaristic clothing. Of course, I have no idea if he is or not. America (Clusterfuck Country) is a very violent place whose solution to everything it to kill it, imprison it, or flush it down the ghetto toilet. Obama. even though he's "black" may have his hands on those levers. Never forget, Hillary voted for the war when many of us, including Obama opposed it. Keeping the debate going helps Obama.

I'd like to why you thing Obama's lost this one. Can you provide any premise support for your conclusion or are you like most people in Clusterfuck Country, clueless when it comes to argumentation and political analysis?

Yesterday, David Johnston reported in the New York Times that nearly 20 cases in which civilian contractors were accused of abusing detainees have been sent to the Justice Department. So far there has not been a single indictment.

In our Torture Nation this is to be expected. The record, as enumerated below, shows that the United States has become one sorry ass country under both political parties. I do not recognize this country anymore. It is not the land I was raised in. When I was a child, during World War Two, one of the major motivations for fighting the fascists was that they tortured and killed the innocents.

Now we have become them. It wounds the human heart. There are no words to adequately describe the shame I feel. A man who stole two elections to get to and maintain control of the white house is now leading this parade of ignominy and savage desecration of the most fundamental principles of morality.

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) released documents of forty-four autopsies held in Afghanistan and Iraq October 25, 2005. Twenty-one of those deaths were listed as homicides. The documents show that detainees died during and after interrogations by Navy SEALs, Military Intelligence, and Other Government Agencies.

"These documents present irrefutable evidence that U.S. operatives tortured detainees to death during interrogation," said Amrit Singh, an attorney with the ACLU. "The public has a right to know who authorized the use of torture techniques and why these deaths have been covered up."

But this is only one example of the Bush regime's authorized torture and killings.

Who knows how many cover ups of similar deaths and torture there have been by the Regime?

In February 2006, the American-based organization Human Rights First, formerly the Lawyers Committee for Human Rights, charged the U.S. government with the deaths of 100 detainees during "the global war on terror."

Indeed, the string of scandals involving the sexual and physical abuse of detainees held by American forces in Afghanistan, Iraq and Guantanamo Bay hasn't stopped. Torture and inhumane treatment are still "widespread" in U.S.-run detention centers in Afghanistan, Iraq, Cuba and elsewhere, despite Bush regime denials," Amnesty International said in May, 2006.

On May 19, 2006, The United Nations Committee On Torture called upon the United States to close all secret prisons, hold accountable senior military and civilian officials who authorized, acquiesced or consented to acts of torture committed by their subordinates, and end its practice of transferring detainees to countries with known torture records.

The committee also criticized the indefinite detention of prisoners at Guantanamo Bay and called for its closure. The committee rejected U.S. claims that the Convention against Torture did not apply to U.S. personnel acting outside of the United States or during wartime.

What was the response of the U.S. Congress? It passed The Military Commissions Act (Senate Bill 3930) and was signed by President (?) George W. Bush on October 17, 2006 In part the act enables President (?) Bush to torture alleged terrorists úsnatched arbitrarily, anywhere in the world, simply on his say-so, SO his designated minions úwill be preserved. In effect the law allows the CIA to torture captives by various methods without being charged with war crimes and felony violations of American law. It grants impunity to senior Bush regime officials against war crimes committed after 9/11. It redefines war crimes such as torture and strips litigants of the ability to cite the Geneva Conventions. Senior Bush officials cannot be prosecuted for war crimes in the United States.

A survey by the Pew Research Center in October of 2005 showed that 15 percent of Americans believe torture is "often" justified, and
31 percent believe it is "sometimes" justified. Add to that another 17 percent who said it is "rarely" justified, and you have two out of three Americans justifying torture under certain circumstances. Only 32 percent said it is "never" justified, while another 5 percent didn't know or refused to answer.

This is a response from people who mostly say that they live in a "Christian Nation." Evidently, the image of Jesus, who was tortured to death, has little impact on the "Christians." Christianity was founded by a victim of torture! It is interesting to note that secularists in the same survey were significantly more opposed to torture than "Christians."

Torture grossly violates the universal commandment given by Jesus, that we should always treat others as we would like to be treated. So whatever you wish that men would do to you, do so to them; for this is the law and the prophets. (Matthew 7:12 RSV)

"Christians" must know that the act of torture perfectly expresses the twisted spirit of Satan, and totally violates the Holy Spirit of God. The desire to inflict pain on others is the most repulsive, repugnant, Satanic desire human beings could possibly have. It is clear that in the Christian tradition, Satan, who hates all people, constantly tries to tempt humans into demeaning, degrading, and hurting each other. It doesn't matter if one thinks of satan in literal terms or as a symbol of what is truly evil. One doesn’t need to believe in either God or satan to understand the power of this ancient analysis.

Torture is indeed Satanic. The American people have made a compact with evil. Not since the days of government sanctioned slavery has the U.S. been inhabited by so many morally perverted and INDIFFERENT citizens. IT IS PERHAPS THE INDIFFERENCE WHICH MAY BE THE MOST PERVERTED ACT OF ALL. The fact that Americans tolerate crimes against humanity by their own leaders is evidence that Americans are moving, en masse, TOWARD religious hypocracy, WITHOUT shame, WITHOUT honor, and WITHOUT decency.

LIBERALS ENGAGE IN SURPRISE RELIGIOUS WAR ON MAJOR PROGRESSIVE WEB SITE

TCS - December 15, 2006. A battle between political progressives has broken out in an unexpected place. Rarely, if ever, is there disagreement between these political types on Arianna Huffington’s popular “Huffington Post.” The commentaries there are liberal in nature as are the art works. That has changed as a Los Angeles area artist contributor has attacked a fellow progressive as being a “sophomoric ignoramus.” The heated clash is between two artists who have strongly dissimilar views about Christianity and politics.

Each month the site features original art work by designers, activists, filmmakers and comics. The most popular entrants win a prize of $3,000 in a contest on the Huffington Post site called the “Contagious Festival.” Each view of an entry counts as a vote.

For the month of December an entrant called the “Atheist Delusion,” which is a robust attack on Christianity, has garnered over 121,000 votes. In a direct response to this aggressive assault, Keith Shirey recently posted his entry which personally attacks the creator of the “Atheist Delusion.” He named his offering “Atheist-Social Darwinist-Hawk.” Shirey, who frequently posts videos and cartoons in the contest, says his own entry is far behind in the voting because he entered it days after The Atheist Delusion had garnered thousands of votes. Both “The Atheist Delusion” and “Atheist-Social Darwinist-Hawk” may be viewed on the internet at http://cf.huffingtonpost.com /

Shirey is a professor of philosophy at a California Community College, teacher of comparative religion, a practicing Episcopalian, and anti-war activist who has been jailed and follwed by INS agents, he says, because of his religious beliefs. In an interview he heatedly portrayed the “Atheist Delusion” as “A piece of crap, the shabby offering of a theological ignoramus who is reinforcing the mistaken notions of fellow non religious political progressives.”

Shirey stated that “The Atheist Delusion” portrays all Christians as as believing that the earth is 6,000 years old, Darwin’s theory of evolution is in error, and that science and reason have no place in the lives of Christians.” However, he protested, ‘Mainline churches don’t hold these views. For example, most Christians are Roman Catholics and their church would reject this brainless depiction of their beliefs as utter nonsense. Modern Popes, the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr, Archbishop Desmond Tu Tu didn’t and don’t believe this way. On a more personal level, I’ve never met anyone engaging in non-violent civil disobedience, who is religiously motivated, who would believe that the earth is 6,000 years old, and are anti-reason and anti-science.”

“The huge success of this anti-Christian diatribe on Huffington is an example of why many Christians see secularist political liberals as anti-religious fanatics. This has and will hurt the Democratic Party. Instead of voting for this absurd presentation, the Huffington Post viewers should be critically analyzing it.”

He continued, “The triumph of this entry on Huffington is also another example of how the know nothings of the evangelical right like Falwell, Robertson and Dobson have hijacked Christianity through their high visibility in the mass media and their public sway over the Born Again Bush. The creator of the Atheist Delusion is either willfully ignorant of the fact that the evangelical right does not represent most Christians or is lying about what he actually knows. In either case, his garbage on The Huffington Post most foully feeds the forces of ignorance in the progressive community. I have to say that many of my secular liberal friends are as ignorant about Christianity as fundamentalist evangelicals are about the true meaning of Christ's teachings which advocate pacifism, loving one's enemy, not worshiping the false idols of materialism and Jesus' stated mission of coming to liberate the poor and oppressed."

http://gopoceanclub.cf.huffingtonpost.com / will cast a vote for a video that satarizes those who don't believe in the dangerous effects of climate change on the planet earth. It's at the Contagious Festival on the Huffington Post. Each view (just click on the above URL) counts as a vote. Contagious Festival is a contest which pits artists against one another to win a prize. When we created this video we didn't think it would do too well, but it's maintained a good position. A click on tbis video, as i say, casts a vote. To see other entrants go to http://cf.bhuyffingtonpost.com I have another entrant that you might want to see called ALL OF MY DECISIONS ARE NO BRAINERS. The entrant the first URL leads to is called PAINFUL DEATHS AT THE G.O.P. BEACH CLUB

Thank you.

Radicalman

BUSH AND HIS FELLOW CRIMINALS TO BE LET OFF THE HOOK!!

If our kids and grandkids ever ask us what we did to fight against our country torturing people I hope we can tell them that made a lot of ‘phone calls, sent e-mails and burned up our fax machines.
Please call your Senator today!
Robert Parry writes today, on “Consortiumnews.com” “The United States is following the lead of “dirty war” nations, such as Argentina and Chile, in enacting what amounts to an amnesty law protecting U.S. Government operatives, apparently up to and including President George W. Bush, who have committed or are responsible for human rights crimes.
“While the focus of the current congressional debate has been on Bush’s demands to redefine torture and to reinterpret the Geneva Conventions, the compromise legislation also would block prosecutions for violations already committed during the five-year-old ‘war on terror’”
The compromise legislation bars criminal or civil legal action over past violations of Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions, according to press reports. Common Article 3 outlaws “violence to life and person,” such as death and mutilation as well as cruel treatment and “outrages upon personal dignity.”
The United States, for a long time, has been a dirty war nation. A.J. Langguth wrote about this in a July 11, 1979 New York Times article entitled “Torture’s Teachers.” Langguth notes in his article that “… the C.I.A. sent an operative to teach interrogation methods to SAVAK, the Shah of Iran’s secret police, that the training included instructions in torture, and the techniques were copied from the Nazis.”
But let’s put a human face on what torture is, shall we? The faint hearted should read no further.
Let’s recall the comments of former CIA Station Chief and National Security Council Coordinator John Stockwell about the CIA Contra Manual and actions promoted by the U.S. Military in Nicaragua at the end of the 20th century: “They go into villages. They haul out families. With the children forced to watch, they castrate the father. They peel the skin off his face. They put a grenade in his mouth, and pull the pin. With the children forced to watch, they gang-rape the mother, and slash her breasts off. And sometimes, for variety they make the parents watch while they do these things to the children.”
Now, let’s fast forward to Feb. 16, 2006 AP report: “ Yesterday, Australia’s public broadcaster, SBS, aired some 60 unpublished photos of torture at Abu Ghraib prison on its show Dateline at 8:30 PM. The images were rapidly re-broadcast on Arab TV and other news outfits and have been condemned immediately as violations of international law by the International Red Cross. 
The new detainee diorama -- a world exclusive, apparently -- includes pictures of bleeding and hooded prisoners bound to beds and doors, of naked men handcuffed together or in a pile, of corpses, of dogs snarling at the faces of prisoners, of cigarette burns on buttocks and wounds from shotgun pellets, and of even more graphic sexual torture.
And how about those renditions, folks! Uzbekistan, Indonesia, Pakistan, and many other countries who are partnered with the US in the so called war on terror who have dismal human rights records.
 
Uzbekistan has recently been in the news about just that. Craig Murray, the former British ambassador there, told 60 Minutes that Uzbek citizens, captured in Afghanistan, were flown back to Tashkent on an American plane operating on a regular basis. Uzbeki torture techniques include drowning, suffocation, rape, and immersion in boiling liquid.
And here’s another fun fact: An internal report from the 1st Cavalry Division, obtained by the Washington Post, states that "electrical shock and choking" are "consistently used to achieve confessions" by Iraqi police and soldiers. So open is the use of torture that it has given rise to a hit television show: Every night on the TV station Al Iraqiya -- run by a U.S. contractor -- prisoners with swollen faces and black eyes "confess" to their crimes.
We need to remember that Javier Zuniga, Amnesty’s program director for the Americas, wrote, “Most of the torture and ill-treatment stemmed directly from officially sanctioned procedures and policies including interrogation techniques approved by Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld.
We need to remember that Washington Post reporter Dana Priest won a Pulitzer Prize last for her articles exposing a network of CIA prisons in Europe where victims of “extraordinary rendition” were transported for interrogation that included torture.
We Need to remember that Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson, chief of staff to Colin Powell when he was US Secretary of State, said about four months ago that he knew of more than 70 "questionable deaths" of detainees under US supervision up to the end of 2002, when he left office. That figure, he added, was now around 90.
OK, down to business: The Bush administration authorized the use of torture and abuse in violation of international humanitarian and human rights law and domestic constitutional and statutory law. The small list of the people who have violated international humanitarian and humans rights are: George W. Bush, President of the United States, Dick Cheney, Vice President, Donald H. Rumsfeld, Secretary of Defense, Alberto Gonzales, formerly White House Counsel and now Attorney General of the United States;. Jay S. Bybee, Assistant Attorney General, and Dick Addington, Vice Presidential Counsel.
In 2001, Bush ordered torture by authorizing Tenet to order the Special Access Program that led to the secret detention of Hiwa Abdul Rahman Rushul, Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, Abu Zabaida and dozens of other detainees without any contact with the outside world in secret prisons around the world and ordering them subjected to tortures including water-boarding, severe beatings, subjection to extreme temperatures, suspension in painful positions, denial of pain-killing medicine after gunshot wounds, severe burning by hot metal, asphyxiation and by threat of death and sexual assault against themselves and members of their families. During such torture an unknown number of detainees died, including Manadel al-Jamadi, Abdul Wali and Abid Hamad Mahalwi.
Beginning in September 2003 many detainees at Abu Ghraib, and elsewhere in Iraq were tortured pursuant to the directives of Rumsfeld, Miller and Sanchez, authorized by the August, 2002 memorandum. During the commission of the acts of torture that the defendants conspired to commit, at least 28 detainees died.
For more extensive information go to the web site “Not In Our Name.”
Indeed, the United States is following the lead of “dirty war” nations, such as Argentina and Chile, in enacting what amounts to an amnesty law protecting U.S. Government operatives, apparently up to and including President George W. Bush, who have committed or are responsible for human rights crimes.” There are a whole bunch of folks, including the Bush Gang, who ought to be indicted in civil courts and maybe be brought before an international tribunal some day. But it looks like they’ll be let off the hook.

This is an excellent strategy for the Republicans. Their party is basically the party of the super rich. The financial institutions, pharmaceuticals, weapons manufacturers, and other top economic sectors all love Bush. But he and the Republicans have to have a popular base. So they get people to focus on "values," not issues. Attention to issues would severely cut into the Christian right base of the GOP. For example, real wealth has declined under Bush for some 90% of the population.

Americans have the highest workload but the lowest access to good health services than any other industrialized country. Job insecurity is rising among the middle and lower middle classes. But Republicans get a lot of votes from working class people who vote on religiosity and guns. That's red meat for them.

If Republicans can get them to focus on rising to heaven when Armageddon comes, their daughter's virginity, the devil writing Darwin's works, black men seducing their wives, black women seducing their husbands, lesbians making out with their daughters, gays breaking up their marriages then these "values" (read religious primitivism, racism, anti-intellectualism, anti-science, homophobia) trump job insecurity, being over worked, under insured, etc. Stirring up an extreme fundamentalist strain in the United States isn't difficult to do.

If one looks at the public opinion polls, about 30% of the population believes in this warrior God whose primary concern is punishing the enemies of his chosen people and who is a very nasty and vindictive fellow. I think over 50% of the population rejects the theory of evolution which is the basis for eight or nine biological sciences. Certainly logic and critical thinking is foreign to most Americans because it isn 't emphasized in the public schools and is rarely encountered in the mass media. Most Americans haven't attained a 4th grade level of the knowledge of geography. It's a wonder, given this sad state of affairs, and the fact that State, Corporate, and Media power are merged and colonize the minds of most people that most Americans aren't slaves! I'm serious!
Of course maybe we are and I don't know it!!

Elections are bought and whoever floods the propaganda system with stupid slogans and images wins. The public relations people, playing on the ignorance of the American People, paid mostly by the corporations, keep us away from real issues in any election. But when Karl Rove is in the saddle, playing to fear, anti-intellectualism, love of guns, homophobia, and bigotry - "values issues" -I'm surprised that Republicans can lose any elections at all.

What Democrats can do about this is another issue.

Response to question at to whether Suskind's, "The New American Militarism" is worth purchasing.

Suskind suggests that the guiding principle for the U.S. is a "default strategy" designed by Dick Cheney . In dealing with our adversaries, the strategy says, if there's even a one percent chance that the unimaginable occurring, act if it is a certainty. In other words, the bar is set so low for standards of evidence that empirical evidence in the real world doesn't count. Fact-based responses to threats don't matter. What matters only is the response. So, for example, if there's a one percent chance that Pakistani scientists are helping Al Queda develop a nuclear weapon we must act as if this is a certainty. This theory is coupled with the rejection of diplomacy and the reliance on military power this most dangerous argues Suskind. As part of this witch's brew, there was no policy process in the White House, in the years examined in the book. Controversial issues that were the subject of heated debate at the level of deputies and principles did not find their way to Bush's desk.

For Bush, "instinct" or "gut" determines action and there are no shades of grey. There is no world of daunting complexity. Things are good or bad, democratic or undemocratic, black or white. "What Bush knew before, during or after a decision remains a mystery," writes Suskind. No complex "whys for him." No need to be bothered by the facts. It's acton - never give in, never admit error.

Without relying on facts, the Bush Administration could create whatever reality it wanted to. In part, this book is a study of that. What counts for Bush is action, the response to our adversaries. What we are witness to is an account of the use of U.S. military power based on hearing messages from God, intuition, wishful thinking and a refusal to understand the limitations of power against terrorism as a technique to humiliate and disempower the modern nation state (this last sentence is my idea, not a paraphrase of Suskind's).

(Who knows where this non-fact backed basis for American foreign policy could lead? Perhaps we could nuke Pakistan? Is there a 1% possibility that Hugo Chavez is sending assassination squads to Washington? Well, let's overthrow the government of Venezuela, it could be argued on the basis of this theory- yes, Bush did try!)

I think Suskinds thesis about the 1% doctrine is well-documented, and his insider's knowledge, which allows for the disclosure of facts not heretofore known, sometimes in elaborate detail, are fascinating. Suskind is an excellent researcher.

I think it's a must read, along with Thom Hartmann, "Screwed," Bacevich's "The New American Militarism" and Linker's "The Theocons," and everything every written by Harry Magdoff and Noam Chomsky.

I appreciate your asking the question because I read the book when it first came out and needed to do a re-read and look at my margin notes.

At http://cf.huffingtonpost.com / is a Flash animation done by my grandson, Jesse Bailey--It's called "Bushland-A Jesse Baily Flash video. It's in about 24th position in terms of popular vote. As you probably know, each view counts as a vote. He put hours of work into its production. I, on the other hand, did a single frame work called, "Bend over and take it in the a.."
It is in about 14th position. I knocked out this presentation in about an hour and one-half.

I don't know what is going on here. One of the problems with the animation is that the sound of the ship blasts away at the beginning causing people (particularly those with cheap computer sound) to turn the volume down, and if they do that, the can't hear most of the sound effects. I really need your constructive criticism of the Flash animation. My grandson is in the process of creating a new one and he doesn't want to make the same mistakes. His college instructor, with whom he took a couse in FLASH last year, thinks the work is excellent and really can offer no critique.

Thank you for your help.

Calling all intelligent Democrats!


I really don’t know where to post this. The current conversation about who are adversaries are and what to do about them in one of the forums here is discouraging in its lack of real content and the extent of personal invective.

On a personal note, before I decided to earn my daily bread in the world of commerce, I was a Professor of Philosophy. One of the ideas I tried to impress upon my students is that, when examining an issue, the most important thing we can do is to ask the right questions. The questions are much more important than the answers. Because if you can’t ask the right questions you can’t get the correct solutions. Let me try and follow my own advice and pose some questions about the so-called war on terror.

Issue One: How important is the role of corrupt, authoritarian Middle Eastern regimes that prop themselves up with religious ideology and of Saudi-financed Wahhabism in promoting Fanatical Islam? And, along with this, how important are lack of job opportunities for the educated and widespread poverty in the Middle East in promoting Jihadist Islam?

Issue Two: Is it true that democratic regime transformation in the Middle East will not address the problem of Islamist extremism and terrorism, because they are phenomena not principally of the Middle East, but of Muslims in the West confronting the loss of identity? The refusal of some European countries to assimilate Muslims, it can be argued, has caused identity loss, resentment ,and outrage against the “host” countries. Even assuming that the transformative strategy managed to stabilize Iraq, it wouldn’t matter. That’s because Hamburg, London, the Parisian banlieues are where the terrorists are.

Issue three: Just how powerful is the global political vision of some powerful Jihadists of a rebirth, a resumption of the long march of Islam, stalled by centuries of Western expansion but reinvigorated by contemporary global demography.

A few comments: I think the United States is fighting against Zealot Jihadist terrorists. This is why the U.S. Invasion and occupation of Iraq was amazingly stupid. Saddam held these zealots in check.

Progressives such as myself like to say that if chronic ill health, disease, poverty and misery are eliminated, then democracy has a better chance of flourishing. Even Bill Clinton, in his Fox interview yesterday, argued that Bush was right in pushing for democracy in the Middle East. But historically, Jihad has been an implacable foe of the west. It is foolish to remember New York, September 11, 2001, and never once think about Vienna, September 11, 1689, or Malta, September 11, 1565; or even Constantinople, May 29, 1453 or Tours, October 7, 732.

Getting sidetracked about how evil Christians were in fighting Muslims is off the point. Fanatical Islamic Jihad is a potent force. Whether actual democracy or improved economic conditions would cause a fanatical theology/ideology to lose its power is the issue. Bill Clinton, for example, thinks so. I’m not so sure. We might be fighting against the same Muslim fanatics some of our forefathers fought against, and events of 2006 are simply a continuation of a thousand year old struggle. Islamists don’t want a secular, democratic, capitalistic society. Islamists have an end-time ideology the worldwide umma, as prescribed in the Koran.

Regardless, two things are clear: 1) We’ve got to get the hell out of Iraq yesterday and stop fueling the resentments of Muslims, which causes their radicalization and 2) We have to become energy independent. Bush admitted recently that our so-called war in Iraq is about oil (he probably also thinks God has commanded him to get the oil for the land where God dwells - you know, the U.S., where the people love justice, Jesus, torture, and Cheap Gas).

I see I’m starting to become very polemical so I’ll stop.

In my opinion, one of the effective ways to deal with Big Brother is to ridicule him. I recently sent this letter to Herr Matthew Bettenhausen, a political appointee of Herr Arnold Schwarzenegger. Sometimes these people actually answer these kinds of letters. For example, a Junior Bush Under Secretary of State responded to a letter which should have been obvious satire to anyone with an IQ higher than that of a squashed vegetable. I urge DUers to write them!

An Open Letter to Matthew R. Bettenhausen

Attention Matthew R. Bettenhausen
Executive Director
Governor's Office of Homeland Security

Dear Sir:

I am gratified to learn from the Los Angeles Times that, in your courageous,
unrelenting struggle against terrorism, you have monitored the activities of
the dangerous animal rights activists in our beloved State of California.
It seems that California Homeland Security was out in force monitoring the
activities of an animal rights rally outside the Canadian consulate office
in San Francisco to protest the hunting of seals. Kudos to you for this
defense of the fatherland.

The purpose of this letter is to report suspicious terrorist activity right
here in my own neighborhood. And, mind you, it is a family neighborhood, so
that means that our precious children - the hope of the fatherland's future -
are at risk!

My neighbors, Mr. Bettenhausen, are vegetarians. And they are absolutely
unrestrained zealots, motivated by a passion for the love and protection of
animals that strikes fear in the hears of any rational person. We are at
risk, here in Altadena. Who knows where this fanaticism may lead?
My own fear is that, because they are apparently always so hungry, so
anemic, and protein deprived, that they will turn to cannibalism. It may
sound far-fetched to you for me to suggest that there is a danger that they
may feast on the tender bodies of our neighborhood homeland children, but
please hear me out! They value animals so far above humans that this is in
the realm of possibility. Certainly, if given a choice, they would dine on
an infant's succulent toes, rather than, say, the legs of a frog or
chicken.

I see that your California Office of Homeland Security coordinates with that
stout band of brothers, the California Highway Patrol (who are often seen in
our neighborhood blocking off streets so that Hollywood may make its soaps.)
Please inform the CHP of my concerns and be so kind as to
contact the Altadena sheriffs as well. In defense of the fatherland I will
certainly do my patriotic duty to turn in my neighbors for any and all
suspicious activity. ( Actually one of them seems to view pornography, an
activity that Homeland Security views as a threat to the fatherland. Would you
like his name? )

(By the way, sir, I'm a little short of cash and wonder if I could become
one of your paid informants.)

As a patriotic citizen concerned about the welfare of my neighborhood, our
children, and, indeed, that our land of liberty, protected by the world's
oldest living constitution and Justices Scalia and Thomas, I beg you to
protect the children of Altadena.

Sincerely,
Radicalman
Post Office Box 505
Pasadena, CA
91102

Whether we progressives should openly disagree and attack Democrats we have fundamental disagreements with is a tough problem.. I have enormous differences with Democrats on many issues. To sum up, they have allowed the Republicans to repeal significant parts of the Roosevelt New Deal. Most of them gave a blank check to Junior Bush to invade and occupy Iraq, kill 100,000 Iraqis and thousands of American military. Now it looks like they will acquiesce on torture. To put it politely, they have no cajones.

But, I think, we have to all acknowledge that the Republicans are not the party of conservatism, but dangerous radicals who would bring our country back to the time or the Robber Barons, destroy the middle class, and, in the name of democratic values, impose a U.S. empire on the rest of the world that will lead to the destruction of our country, just as sure as the Roman Empire destroyed the Roman Republic. These Republican Radicals would create a surveillance society and a police state. In the name of their strange God, they would impose a theocratic state.

I think democrats, as well as republicans, are in the pockets of Corporate America. But, whatever the failings of Democrats, they would not join Republicans in a dance around a bonfire consuming the Bill of Rights, nor sing with them in a sadistic song of mocking the poor and glorifying the rich.

Those of us on the "left" are marginalized by the mainstream media. As a practical matter, is it of importance that you or I speak truth to power in the DU when the networks or cable don't cover it? Are we really going to to do damage to the Democratic Party if we do that? I think we should criticize the Democrats openly when they deserve it, but vote for them in the secrecy of the ballot box. But, more importantly, we should take over the Democratic Party on the local level and make our candidates responsible to us, not Corporate America or right wing religious nuts.

In yesterday's “compromise” on torture, made between Junior Bush and the three republican senators, the 3 former dissenters officially endorsed unrestricted torture in secret prisons, in unknown places, for unknown people. Then the tortured victims can now be brought before a secret kangaroo court where their appointed attorneys can review meaningless evidence. What a compromise this is! Whether McCain, Warner, and Graham represent the whole U.S. Senate remains to be seen.

The “compromise” would eliminate the right of any alien, who is in US custody outside the US, or who "has been determined by the United States to have been properly detained as an enemy combatant," to file for habeas corpus, thus ending 800 years of Anglo-American jurisprudence and one of the most important individual rights in any legal system.

The “compromise” eliminates the right of any such alien to take any legal action against "the United States or its agents" concerning the conditions of his or her detention, other than to appeal the results of Civilian Status Review Commissions or military tribunals. There would be no appeal allowed to the American judicial system.

Finally, the “compromise” changes the definition of war crimes: currently, any conduct that violates Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions counts as a war crime; the draft bill changes this to "a grave breach of common Article 3". And the lawyers can argue what constitutes a “grave breach” from here til doomsday without coming to a conclusion.

The ACLU’s Washington Office, speaking on the “compromise," sums it up: "The proposal would make the core protections of Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions irrelevant and unenforceable. It deliberately provides a 'get out of jail free card' to the administration's top torture officials, and backdates that card nine years.”

Without going into the sad details, The United States has sometimes been nation of torturers and has aided others in torture. But I had always thought, in terms of public policy and conversation, torture was beyond the pale, a line not to be crossed. But due to fear, encouraged and stoked for partisan political advantage by the party without shame, the GOP, American is fast losing its character, if not its soul.

Now the question is, which Democrats, if any, in the Senate and House will say, “I don’t want the government torturing in my name!”